marriage: growing day by day

Standing up to be counted

2010-06-15T20:48:00.000-07:00

I discovered recently through Box Turtle Bulletin that a number of clergy and church leaders in Iowa signed a petition asking the legislators to overturn the Supreme Court's decision that Iowa law and Constitution required same-sex partners the ability to legally obtain civil marriage.

I downloaded the petition and saw, to my dismay, that a church I attended on weekends while visiting my family during college had 5 signatories on the list. Tonight I finally decided to do something about that. So I located the email addresses of 4 of them (the fifth eluded me) and I typed up the following email in an effort to let them know that their signatures as church staff has consequences for those in their congregation. It read:

Dear (staff member),

I'm (Topher), a graduate student currently at the University of Illinois. I'm originally from the Iowa City area, where I often visit my dad and mom and sisters. I spent many Sunday mornings at (church name) during weekends at home during my undergraduate at Iowa State University, and my family has often visited as well.

I was dismayed to learn, however, that recently you were a signatory of the "petition to the Iowa legislature from Iowa clergy and church leaders" that advises legislators to establish the legal definition of civil marriage as between a man and a woman. I and other gay persons I know from college have directly benefited from the ability to have same-sex marriage in the state of Iowa. This includes the entitlement to medical information in an emergency, sharing health insurance through their employers, and a stable legally-binding relationship to support their adopted children. But most of all, these people are Christians who are now legally permitted a relationship already sanctioned by their churches.

I hope that you, having stated your opposition to the Court's position have undertaken your civic duty to understand why the court reached its conclusion. If you have not read any of the Court's opinion, I have attached a summary released by the Court last spring. In particular, I would ask that you read the section "Religious opposition to same-sex marriage" in the document, which reads:

Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”

In the future, I hope that you would strongly reconsider attaching the name of (church name) and your staff position behind your individual petition signature. For while it may momentarily seem to increase the strength of your signature, it also demonstrates that because of political beliefs, rather than theological beliefs, that I, my parents, and my sisters are not welcome in your congregation.

Thank you for your time.

Topher

I will let you know if and when I hear back from any of them.

(Day 731)

Happy 2nd anniversary to us!

2010-06-15T20:35:00.000-07:00

Now I've officially made a habit of being late on posting about our anniversaries. But if it makes you feel any better, I at least remembered to share my 2nd anniversary with the man I love, even if not immediately with all of you!

Our weekend was, strangely enough, dominated by family time. We visited Chicago, meeting up with J's aunt and cousin, both of whom came to our Quaker wedding, and with J's mother, who was not present at the wedding. This led to a few awkward situations, two of which I'll detail.

The first: J's mother saying that she was going to buy us an anniversary dinner. It just didn't sit right with me. Sure, it's a sign of support. But of what? Certainly not the marriage. Support of her son, even though he's her wayward child? Perhaps. Luckily, circumstances intervened and we had to order food in, which meant no weird discussions of who pays for what and that it did/didn't have anything to do with our anniversary.

The second: on Sunday morning, J's cousin and aunt (both supportive of our relationship) started asking questions related to us getting kicked out of our church. Nothing we said was inaccurate or meant to portray the church in an unfair light, but still J's mom was quiet the entire time and was obviously not fitting into the conversation.

Happy anniversary, my love!

(Day 731)

How can gay be natural, if ...

2010-03-31T19:48:00.000-07:00

... it doesn't increase reproduction? You, of course, won't hear this argument much from those who don't believe in evolution. But for those who do, it raises an interesting question: how can homosexuality be a recurring natural occurrence, when on the surface it appears to decrease the number of offspring who will survive to reproduce themselves?

Not that this article answers the question, but it brings up many scientists who are now delving into the details of that very question. Enjoy:

Can animals be gay?

(Day 655)

One year anniversary for Iowa same-sex couples

2010-03-31T18:49:00.000-07:00

This coming Saturday, April 3 2010, will mark the one year anniversary of the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling that stated it was unconstitutional to deprive same-sex couples of the institution of civil marriage. Jonas and I were directly impacted by this ruling, in that we were able to finally be recognized in the state where I grew up and where we visit my family. What a great day!

Not only that, Iowa Governor Chet Culver reiterated his support of the Democrat-controlled legislature to not bring same-sex marriage to a vote, saying:

“Regardless of our personal views, we have a line that needs to be drawn between the executive branch, the judicial branch and I think Iowans are ready to move on and accept that unanimous decision.”

Maybe not everyone is willing to accept it; all three Republican candidates for governor are opposed to same-sex marriage and . But I hope they fail ... after all, it would mean endangering the marriages of over 1,800 same-sex couples in the state. One of which Jonas and I would miss terribly should it disappear.

(Day 655)

Genuine bridge-building

2010-03-10T21:05:00.000-08:00

About every other Tuesday night, the local LGBT and allies Christian group for students on campus meets. Yesterday, however, we decided to take our group off campus and into the home of a wonderful PFLAG woman named Peggy. We brought 12 students from campus and met with approximately 10 adults from Peggy's presbyterian church. One adult, Don, was the guy who organized bringing Andrew Marin to town, which was surprising, since he is more evangelical and less supportive than those who were from PFLAG (speaking of Andrew Marin, I need to write a post about his visit to town).

The food was excellent (I need to get some recipes!), the conversation meaningful. We had an hour-long discussion after dinner about our experiences of either being LGBT and coming out to friends and/or family, or of being a parent/wife/family member of someone who is LGBT. Two stories particularly resonated. One was of a woman whose husband of 18 years one day said he had to move out to figure things out; only a few months later did he tell her that it was because he was gay and just couldn't continue in their marriage as such. And yet she was such a supportive woman, even after all the hurt and pain caused by her husband having been gay. The second story was that of a student who I had only met twice before. He is involved in Intervarsity, a Christian group on campus, but was told he could no longer be a leader after he started dating his current boyfriend. That and other parts of his story reminded me of the difficult times my husband and I encountered when we first started dating within an evangelical church.

The evening was, by all means, hugely successful. Whereas our regular meetings are about 1 hour long, this one went for ~2 to 2.5 hours before breaking up, and then people voluntarily stayed around for another 30 to 45 minutes! Now that we've seen how it can work well, we will be eager to repeat it again in the future. Heck, another PFLAG couple has already volunteered to be the next hosts; now that's a vote of confidence in what we're accomplishing!

(Day 634)

Lt. Choi visit

2010-02-16T20:05:00.000-08:00

Last night I attended a talk headlined by Lt. Dan Choi. Many of you may know him as the military officer who has been vocally opposed to Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). While I will not regurgitate his speech, a majority of which can be found strewn across the web, I wanted to latch onto an idea mentioned and which I had not heard explained before.

In 1948 President Truman signed executive order 9981, which enacted racial desegregation in the military. Lt. Choi said some people have picked up on this recently and argued that to repeal DADT, we need to have committees and perform studies and have plans for how to integrate gays into the military, etc. But, said Lt. Choi, we don't need to do all this pre-planning and stretch it out for years, because those who draw the comparison are missing out on a vital component: gays are already integrated into every corner of the military. Unlike race, where it was easy to keep out people of a certain skin color or appearance, LGBT service members who have not run afoul of DADT are everywhere in the military. There is no need for an integration plan, because they are already integrated. All that is needed is for DADT to be repealed and for commanding officers to demand that all members, regardless of orientation, are treated with dignity and respect.

All of this is not to mention that Democrats may lose control of congress in less than a year, in which case DADT may stay on the books for years to come.

(Day 612)

Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

2010-01-11T18:37:00.000-08:00

Well written by Ted Olson, I would like to direct people to The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage in this week's Newsweek.

(Day 576)

Holidays with the family

2010-01-07T20:21:00.000-08:00

For Jonas and I, the holidays this year were a big time of travel to see not just one family - as it had been for most of our lives - but instead both our families. Last year we had already been to Texas in October and opted to spend Christmas with my family in Iowa. Having already spent Thanksgiving with my family this year, we headed down to Texas for a lengthy 6 day period of time. Flying into Dallas, we saw his extended family for lunch, including his brother's recent fiancée (they are adorable together). Then we headed back to the homestead east of Dallas.

This holiday at Jonas' parents' place was a big deal for us and, overall, it was a big step forward over the last time we visited their household. Last time we came down for holidays was Thanksgiving in 2008. Jonas had been told we couldn't touch (period) while in sight of his parents (particularly his mom, for whom it might have initiated another bout of tears, which were quite common in those days); we didn't feel free to use affectionate language; most interactions seemed a bit awkward and always tinged with "I wish the homewrecker weren't wrecking our previously 'perfect' family life"; we couldn't share a bedroom, even though bunkbeds allowed us to sleep in separate beds. Granted, these things range from minor inconveniences to moderate discomforts. But holidays are the time of year to relax, get comfortable, and be yourself. With all the worrying about not getting close enough to touch or slipping and saying the word "honey" or "baby", there wasn't much relaxing that holiday. (Though I did learn how to play 42.)

This time was different. We could touch in front of the family and there was no crying. We could say most anything we felt like saying without being worried. And we got to stay together in a cabin on the property (and no, this wasn't a bad cabin ... it was like staying in my apartment in fact. And just to show how nice the cabin was, his parents stayed in the one right next to us for the first part of the trip, while the main house was fully occupied).

Practically a night and day difference, at least from our standpoint! Was it perfect? No. Especially with his seminary-trained brother who dropped a bombshell right as we were leaving for Austin (subject of a future post). But I can see that the bargaining that went on over the last six months (yes, Jonas has been in "negotiations" since about June/July) really paid off. And their efforts did a lot to further endear myself to his parents.

(Day 572)

Recruiting ... no, not that kind

2009-11-24T05:21:00.000-08:00

This post is not about about gays recruiting. Rather, it's about recruiting the gays.

In particular, it's about Northrup Grumman recruiting gays on campus. Our local oSTEM chapter was contacted by Northrup Grumman and asked if they could give a job talk (complete with free food, yum!). The 8pm talk consisted of two company representatives, one of whom was gay and involved in their company ERG (Employee Resource Group) devoted to LGBT issues, the other was an ally who said he attended the LGBT ERG because of his gay son. During the Q&A session, I asked specifically about their LGBT company policy, how it has changed while they have been employed at Northrup Grumman, and whether that policy is implemented or if it's just a talking point. They pointed out that Northrup Grumman has earned a perfect 100 on the HRC corporate equality index (CEI), which I later confirmed is true both for the 2009 and 2010 CEI ratings. They offer domestic partner benefits (unlike my husband's company, which rates only 75 on the 2010 CEI, albeit up from 55 on the 2009 CEI), as well as every other category tracked by the CEI. Apparently many (seven!) vice presidents of Northrup went to a conference on LGBT work issues along with numerous employees. Most telling, they said that though we would love to think Northrup made the change out of a sense of humanity, it really did so out of a necessity to recruit the best labor force for its company; yes, it made business sense to offer LGBT workplace rights and guarantees. Finally, they said the policy is implemented on the ground, that though there may be "haters" (their word, not mine), those people no longer have any company support and in some instances could be reprimanded. I was glad to hear this is now an entrenched corporate policy supported by the majority of its employees.

What I find particularly delicious about the whole situation is that the third largest defense contractor for the U.S. military is actively recruiting gays to produce machinery, electronics, and systems for the same military that would kick them out under Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). Oh when will will get rid of DADT and not depend on gays to simply invent and manufacture our death rays?

(Day 528)

Demography and Gay Marriage

2009-11-10T19:47:00.000-08:00

A friend sent a link today that graphically represents how demography influences the recent votes on gay marriage. Please visit sociological images to see the graph.

A few things that stuck out to me:
1) A lot of places where gay marriage and/or strong civil unions exist have the highest rates of public acceptances. This includes
Massachusetts (#1, gay marriage)
Vermont (#2, gay marriage)
Connecticut (#4, gay marriage)
New Hampshire (#5, gay marriage)
Maine (#6, gay marriage passed by legislature, voted down with Prop 1)
California (#7, gay marriage passed by court, voted down with Prop 8)
Washington (#8, civil unions just affirmed by referendum)

2) Iowa is pretty far down the list (about mid-way down). The overall score of support is ~40%. If gay marriage was not passed at the ballot box in Maine (where support was nominally ~50%), then Iowa certainly wouldn't pass it. My only consolation at this point is that it won't end up on the ballot for a few more years, and even then it might not be put up for a vote.

3) Demography will change this issue, even if people don't change their minds. The young of today will be the old of tomorrow. The old of today will not vote tomorrow. The data points will steadily march rightward to the higher acceptance percentages.

4) If we need to rely on demography, gay marriage has made most of the gains that are possible at this time. Sure, my list above shows that Rhode Island could pass civil unions and/or gay marriage and it would likely stick at the ballot box. But otherwise, no other regions now have majority public support for gay marriage. Ready for a long wait?

(Day 514)

The hilarity continues

2009-11-10T19:43:00.000-08:00

About every other week my husband and I get some awkward comments from people passing us by. This weekend was by far one of the more hilarious and quotable ones. Please visit my husband's post on it for the details.

(Day 514)

The Boodle

2009-10-22T16:40:00.000-07:00

Each couple, as they grow closer together, seem to develop a language specific to their relationship. For some people, it is baby talk. For others, it is sarcasm. For even others, it's strange pet names.

Jonas and I have developed our language over a few years now. The first edition was primarily focused on Strong Bad phrases and intonations from homestarrunner.com. Yes, it sounds weird, but it's true. We both loved Homestar Runner and somehow (through no conscious choice of our own) it became a facet of our daily communications.

Though by no means gone from our vocabulary, Strong Bad has now taken a backseat to our newest love phrase: the boodle. Yep, the boodle. Many times this will be a string of boodles in a row, such as "boodle boodle boodle boodle boodle boodle boodle boodle!" Or sometimes just a single exclamatory "BOODLE!" Many phone conversations no longer begin with a "hey!", but rather a "boodle!" But the best use of the boodle has recently been as I'm falling asleep during the week and wishing he were here in my arms, rather than 2 hours away, I begin rolling around in bed and boodling aloud, wishing he were there to watch and then pounce on me in the bed.

Strange? Yes. But I must admit, I loooooove the boodles!

(Day 495)

Volunteering ... success!

2009-09-27T13:11:00.000-07:00

As an update to the last post, this morning my husband and I were able to volunteer to help keep the same-sex marriage law in Maine. The whole thing was quite new to both of us, as neither of us had ever before volunteered for a campaign before.

First, there was the training to do calls. We logged into a conference call and simultaneously saw a webcast of how to make the calls. Very slick interface, very easy to understand. We could see how it is a system used by many campaigns, all the way from local politicians to state-wide campaigns like this one. Aah, the legacy of telemarketing :-)

But then came the calling. I must admit, we were both quite nervous about the calling. I personally have a hate-hate relationship with phones. If I have any other option of communication, I choose it before I choose the phone. But in the end, we both sat down and began to make some calls. Many were ones where nobody answered, some were people who hate telemarketers (which I completely understand), and a small handful were people who actually cared. In the end, we had a small impact, but one that was on the whole helpful, and enlightening about how the entire process works for a winning campaign. Or what we certainly hope will be a winning campaign!

(Day 470)

Volunteering ... delayed

2009-09-24T21:18:00.000-07:00

Today HRC sent out an email, asking for people to help make phone calls for a prominent pro-gay marriage outfit in Maine. The idea is to raise support and knowledge about the upcoming ballot measure, which the Yes side is trying to have succeed in taking away the right of marriage for gays.

My husband suggested we do the calling this weekend, so we signed up for a training session tonight. And then we waited for an email with instructions to come.

Then we waited some more.

And waited.

And ... waited.

The email never came. I've emailed them for a later training. But my hope is this is just a fluke and we're able to end up helping. I just had flashbacks to when Pomoprophet was turned away from helping defeat Prop 8 in California, and we all know how that turned out.

(Day 467)

Domestic Partnership

2009-09-23T19:11:00.001-07:00

So I've been going to a lot of weddings this year. And when I say a lot, I mean:
January: 1 in Kansas
February: 1 in Iowa
July: 2 in Iowa (including my own legal wedding, woo hoo!)
August: 1 in Iowa

And now I have one more to report:
September: 1 in Maryland

This last one stands out to me because 1) they hold a special place in my heart, not the least because they hold a special place in my husband's heart and 2) they're another gay couple. I won't quibble here between "marriage" and "domestic partnership" (since that's what Maryland offers). It could have just as easily been called "the cutest thing ever" and it would be just as accurate.

It was late on Friday afternoon when my husband and I went with them to the notary public to sign the documentation. It seemed to go so fast, with a flurry of signing and then we were out the door. I just had to hold us up and say "wait a second, I think we need to think about what just happened!" It was adorable how walking down the street from the store back to the car they held hands, just a comfortable, relaxing stroll of a partnered couple.

These friends have been together for quite some time now and, like my husband and I, have worked through many religious issues of their own, as well as have dealt with nonsupportive parents. But through it all, they have come out with a stronger relationship that I hope will continue to blossom over the coming years. Congratulations, (DJ)^2 (or JD^2?)!

(Note: there are an additional two weddings to go to this year ... bringing the total to ::drum roll:: 8!)

(Day 466 ... can you believe how big a number that is?!)

Tupperware

2009-07-28T18:59:00.000-07:00

My husband and I have gotten into the habit of cooking three dishes together each Saturday/Sunday when we visit each other. Dividing up the food between the two of us, it tends to be enough for lunches and dinners throughout the week.

This Sunday, we did the same, merrily working in the kitchen cooking and baking quiches and frittatas while glancingly viewing "The Bucket List". Finishing up, I began cleaning the dishes, but after a minute turned around to see my suddenly silent husband. Hovering over some pyrex dishes, dividing the food, he was sobbing. Immediately moving over to console him, he said through the sobs, "I think tupperware is the saddest thing in the world."

Now, tupperware really isn't the saddest thing in the world. But what is sad is what it represents: each week needing to divide up our stuff, load up the car, separate ourselves for another week. The first week of it was difficult, but tolerable. The first month of it was depressing, but tolerable. But now it's past the first year of the periodic separations, and it's becoming intolerable. God, let me swiftly graduate so that we don't have to keep doing this much longer!

(Day 409)

Series on gays and spirituality

2009-07-26T20:37:00.000-07:00

I would like to refer readers to visit Ameriqueer blog, which is currently doing a series on LGBT and Allies and their take on spirituality. This spans from agnosticism to Chrisitianity to Judaism and onward. The series will continue for the next week or so.

I was asked by Ameriqueer whether I would contribute an article for the series. I immediately said yes. The catch, however, was that I had to come up with the exact topic. What could have turned into a long, difficult choice rather came to me quickly; I felt the strong urge to write about the first time that I felt the strong presence of God during a Quaker meeting. This was also a time shortly after having been asked to permanently leave the evangelical church I had been attending.

Feel free to read the post "Solace in the silence", hosted on Ameriqueer.

(Day 407)

Scare stories

2009-07-12T09:12:00.000-07:00

Something often pointed out by bloggers, such as at Box Turtle Bulletin, are the scare stories put out by media outlets (particularly anti-gay conservative evangelical media) about the terrible price that gay people pay for, well, being gay. While the preponderance of scariness may normally reside within people like AFA, CitizenLink, and others, sometimes it hits mainstream. For instance, a recent "gay plague" scare was at fever pitch in January 2008 regarding MRSA. Reported in Reuters and other normally reputable news outlets (with quotes like "Once this reaches the general population [read: the straight population], it will be truly unstoppable"), it turns out the scare was just that: a scare. Having been debunked, it quietly disappeared and now nobody thinks anything of it.

So every once in a while it's nice to see people go back through the archives and show just how wrong media can be. Some of this is perspective: when you're living in the midst of what you're reporting, you may become myopic and just follow the crowd. Some of this is selling news: you have to . And some is just, well, dumb. So here it is: the top 10 Time covers that got it wrong. (Thanks to 101 Lost Theses for the link.)

(Day 393)

How many "day of marriage"?

2009-07-11T05:32:00.000-07:00

For those of you who read the little "(Day [insert number here])" at the end of each post on this blog, you have have noticed something: the number is now greater than 365.

That means we made it 1 year! Woo hoo!

Now, I'm sorry to have disappointed those of you who were expecting a big post on Day 365. Truth be told, I was a bit disappointed in myself. In an effort to explain myself and why I disappointed everyone (even me!), here's my list:
1) prelim prep ... leading to passing my prelim on June 12th! (i.e. day 363)
2) vacation! on remote locations, even islands, in Michigan's UP! (i.e. days 364-372)
3) catching up on all the work I hadn't been doing! (i.e. days 373 and onward)
4) preparing for our LEGAL marriage in Iowa!

Speaking of which ... there should be an upcoming post about that LEGAL MARRIAGE thing!

(Day 392)

Bridging the Gap: sorely needed

2009-06-24T21:12:00.000-07:00

Today, in conjunction with the "Bridging the Gap" project, a group of Christians and gays are getting together to produce a "synchroblog". Numerous blogs are all posting related to the Bridging the Gap theme today and can be accessed at the blog Bridging the Gap. Please, go, now! Read what others have to say. I've read about 10 of them so far and have loved the diverse stories which all center around the same theme: mutual respect through our disagreements. Below is my contribution.

To be upfront, I was not always an evangelical. In fact, evangelicalism was quite foreign to me when I first encountered it upon entering college. But what was at first something so strange quickly drew me in. Maybe it was the fellowship of other Christians. Maybe it was learning passages straight from the Bible. Maybe it was the release of sin from my shoulders. But above all, I believe it was the reach of God into my life through the people of the church.

Upon graduation and moving to a new university for graduate studies, I searched for a church exactly like the church where I found that faith, that reach of God. I did not find such a church. I spent weekend after weekend going to two churches that seemed best, trying in vain to discern which to attend. The one with lively services and strong preaching? Or the one with people with open arms who cared about the personal relationships? Finally, one day I heard God speak clearly: go to those who care about relationships.

And go I did. They became my family away from home. They were my brothers and sisters, my mentors and my support. Our small group of 10 graduate students grew to 20, we had trouble fitting in our meeting space, we dominated the seating area of any restaurant we descended upon, and we prompted remarks of admiration from the pastors as to a "sweetness of the spirit" coursing through the group. Of course, this was all before the "gay issue".

Ah, the gay issue. How threatening it is! What fear is induced in even the most forgiving of souls! Only to be replaced with stares. Hard glances. Systematic theologies. Bible concordances. Pastoral guidance. Pastoral disapproval. Pastoral rejection.

Relationship dissolution.

Today I am no longer an evangelical. A Christian, yes, but not an evangelical. It was not a "phase", as though something one experiments with before moving on to the next attention-grabbing item. It was a movement with which I identified the very core of my spirit, in the belief that it was the good working of God, from which I could drink and for which I could bear fruit. And it was my church, my family away from home -- a group of the very people of God -- who determined that I would no longer be able to relax in their presence, nor contribute my labor. How can one thrive in a community of God which refuses to share their community?

This is my story, but this is not about me. This is about God, and the church. Bridging the Gap attempts to build a bridge over the gap to connect the two groups of people separated by beliefs on the morality of homosexuality. But there is another gap which is equally troubling, the gap between the respect and love of God for all people and the lack of respect and love of God's people for those who disagree with them. This is the gap that we must ultimately pray will close, for it will not only allow for respectful disagreement between Christians on this topic, but also bring Christians into closer communion with God.

Bridging the Gap is sorely needed to speak these truths aloud to the people of God. Something is drastically wrong when a church acknowledges a gay person is indeed a Christian, yet treats them with less love bestowed upon the Heathen. Christians are to share God to the world through their love to one another. Bridging the Gap aims to realize this restoration of not only love to one another - in spite of our disagreements - but through doing so, restoring God's shining presence in this world. As Jesus prayed for unity of the church, may we pray for the same. Amen.

(Day 375)

Bridging the Gap Synchroblog is today!

2009-06-24T06:11:00.000-07:00

Today a group of Christians and gays are getting together to produce a "synchroblog". This is in conjunction with the "Bridging the Gap" project, whose video clips you may have seen on Box Turtle Bulletin or other similar sites. Numerous blogs are all posting related to the Bridging the Gap theme today and can be accessed at the blog Bridging the Gap. Go see it, you know you want to!

As I'm just coming back from vacation and catching up at work, I will be posting my addition later tonight, I hope by ~9pm CST. But in the meantime, I strongly encourage you to follow the link and read some of the other blog postings ... there are plenty to choose from! They include some people I know, including Pomoprophet and DJFree!

(Day 375)

Update: I left DJFree out of the original list, as the link on Bridging the Gap was originally wrong. But now it's correct. Sorry for leaving you off the list!

Ellen DeGeneres "common cement" speech

2009-05-20T21:15:00.000-07:00

Below is the video of Ellen DeGeneres' commencement address to the 2009 Class at Tulane University. It actually made reference to how far she's come in life, in a very inspiring way. Thanks to Pomoprophet for pointing this one out!

(Day 340 ... less than a month before the 1 year anniversary!)

DADT then and now

2009-05-17T12:51:00.000-07:00

AMERICAblog has written a post "the tale of two Gibbs." In it, he shows two clips of white house press secretary Robert Gibbs, both of which are about Don't Ask Don't Tell. The first, from January 2009 is shown here:

The second clip, from May 2009 is shown here:

Notice a difference? As pointed out by AMERICAblog and then concurred with at Box Turtle Bulletin, it may be because "he knows secretly we're on the path to getting screwed." Screwed indeed.

(Day 337)

Looking forward, with an eye to the past

2009-05-10T21:16:00.000-07:00

Two articles came out today related to how modern gay rights issues are related to the recent past.

The first is titled "5 years on, gay marriage debate fades in Massachussetts". This is, of course, the worst nightmare of those fighting the culture war. What happens when people no longer care is that the status quo continues. I find it fascinating and wonderful that there is now little-to-no political ambition to change the ruling on gay marriage among the state legislators.

The second is "Will Don't Ask, Don't Tell be back on the agenda?" Those of you having listened to the blogs recently will know that the Obama administration has seemingly been treading the waters, possibly backtracking on DADT, just to days later say that no changes in their stance has occurred. I do agree with the author that the most compromise possible on this issue has happened already and is embodied within DADT, such that now we should just go all the way. Otherwise a lengthy battle where people dig in their heels would probably ensue. Just get the political pain over and done with, and then everything will work its way through the system.

(Day 330)

One Iowa advertisement

2009-05-09T17:55:00.000-07:00

I'm so excited to see that pro-gay Iowa groups are not sitting on their haunches like California groups did. Instead, they've already produced an ad to broadcast in the state!

Thanks to Newscrazy!

(Note: this is a bit old, but I definitely wanted to post on it!)

(Day 328)

Stephen Colbert on Gay Marriage

2009-05-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

Wow, when you write posts and then forget about them, this is what you get:

In case you have not seen the Colbert Report addressing the latest on gay marriage, please watch the embedded clip, or visit the clip via this link. As a side note, the guy who gets soaked has amazingly well-defined abs ... if only I could work out to achieve those!

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad

colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

For those who want a little bit more spoofing, please visit YouTube and search for "gathering storm" to see all the parodies floating around associated with this ad.

I'm glad that people have found a creative outlet to simply brush off the charges leveled in the original advertisement. The commercial is nothing more than fear-mongering, preying on fears which are relatively unsubstantiated.

The human phalllus. Why?

2009-05-09T05:36:00.001-07:00

I hope this post doesn't come across as stereotypically gay, with me dedicating a post showing obsession with the human phallus. Because that is not the point of this post.

Rather, I came across this article when reading through recent science headlines. Turns out that Scientific American has posted an article "Secrets of the Phallus: Why is the penis shaped like that?" And despite being written by a gay writer, he even states during the article:

Now the irony doesn't escape me. But in spite of the fact that this particular evolutionary psychologist (yours truly) is gay, for the purposes of research we must consider the evolution of the human penis in relation to the human vagina.

So don't worry, heterosexuals have nothing to fear from this article.

Why is this article worthy of posting? Because it answers why. Why is the human phallus so large, relative to body size, compared to all other primates? Why are humans the only primates that have a "mushroom-capped glans" at the head of the phallus? In particular, why is the coronal ridge of the glans wider than the shaft that supports it?

Go ahead, read it, and know more about how we came to be so well endowed.

(Day 328)

Churches, the IRS, and Free Speech

2009-05-09T05:26:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have heard that before the November 2008 election, some churches banded together and announced that they would be using their church platforms to specifically endorse a political candidate for POTUS. They called the event "Pulpit Freedom Sunday".

The reason this was news is because it is illegal. As per tax law, religious organizations who claim tax-exempt status are not permitted to endorse specific candidates; rather, they can only endorse specific causes (e.g. environmental laws, pro-life policies, etc.).

Well, it's now been months since the election and still no news from the IRS. Why?

The article points out potential reasons, including "the IRS has nothing to gain from a costly and mainly symbolic battle." This is probably the reason. I feel, though, this is unfortunate.

While I strongly believe in the right to free speech, I feel it is not the burden of the state to support it. In essence, that is what the state is doing for these churches through their tax-exempt status, which amounts to a subsidy for their activities. All of these churches are permitted to endorse Jesus for president if they wanted, as long as they paid taxes like any other organizations which are currently legally entitled to endorse candidates.*

I do wonder how the churches would view this, however, if the pulpits proclaiming freedom of speech had endorsed Obama for his pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-green policies? I can only imagine the gnashing of teeth that would come out over supporting law-breaking pro-gay rights religious leaders.

*(Note: this is similar to the Roman Catholic adoption agencies in Massachussetts which stopped providing adoption services due to their refusal to permit gays adopt with their service. It is not that they were not permitted to continue adoptions, rather they would have lost their tax-exempt status. Rather than cough up more money to maintain their anti-gay adoption stand, they just ceased the operation altogether. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, however, continued their adoption program and just pay their taxes.)

(Day 328)

Headlines

2009-05-07T06:42:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, there have been a lot of headlines recently on gay issues, particularly with the passage of the Hate Crimes bill that covers sexual orientation, the Supreme Court decision in Iowa, and the legislative actions in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Washington D.C., and New York.

But I was not expecting what I saw this morning as I brushed my teeth. I have an internet-enabled phone and usually use it to check the NYTimes in the morning (because they have an amazing mobile site). Well, this morning under the politics heading, all three headlines were related to gay rights!

I particularly liked the first of the three articles, which is linked here. It discusses how the Obama White House has been mysteriously silent about all the same-sex marriage progress that has been occurring over the past month or so. While I agree in most part with those at BTB and the Washington Post in that Obama is taking the wrong strategy on gay rights at the present moment, I think a lot of the gay community frustration is because they were expecting so much from the man. Never much enamored with the man myself, I find myself somewhat shrugging, saying "eh, he's a politician acting like a politician." Why repeal DADT or the DOMA now when it may cost you votes later?

I think the gay community's thought are summed up by a quote from the NYTimes article:

“We’ve elected probably the most pro-gay president in history; he’s very good on the issues but he is not good on gay marriage,” said Steven Elmendorf, a gay Democratic lobbyist. “From the gay community’s perspective, he and a lot of other elected officials are wrong on this. My view is that over time, they’re going to realize they’re wrong and they’re going to change.”

(Day 327)

New car!

2009-05-07T06:37:00.001-07:00

So if I've been a little quiet as of late, it's because my weekends have been spent car shopping rather than blogging. While there were some perks to car shopping (i.e. driving cool cars), there was also the drudgery of fending off voracious car salesmen.

But in the end we ended up with a nice new sexy car. Welcome to the new family vehicle!

Now if only we didn't have a lingering suspicion that the car salesman will be telling all his co-workers about the gay couple that just bought a car together ...

(Day 327)

PRIDE 2009

2009-04-28T23:17:00.000-07:00

I was recently made aware of this video by a friend's blog. Gives you a sense of history, realizing we are living in the gains made by those who came before. Also, note how the end has future newspaper headlines ... if only their timeline comes true!

(Day 318)

Gay marriage arrives in Iowa

2009-04-28T20:59:00.000-07:00

I wouldn't have believed it if a year ago you had told me gay marriage would be arriving in Iowa in the near future. But here we are, a day into marriage for anyone -- regardless of gender -- and it got off to a bang!

For a listing of all Des Moines Register related articles, visit here.

For a map of where people married on the first day, see here. My home county of Johnson County (where Iowa City is located) came in second at 46 marriages, just behind Polk County (where Des Moines, the capital, is located).

But what caught my eye the most was the article "Religious backers of gay marriage celebrate". Yep, that's right -- religious backers, rather than religious opponents. One of the people who spoke said this:

"What happens in Iowa is not just about Iowa. Future generations will look back at this place, at this time, as the point when the tide started to turn."

And turn it might be doing. Just out today was a CBS/NYTimes poll showing fully 42% favor marriage, while another 25% favor civil unions but not marriage. This leaves only 28% demanding that LGBT people receive no rights whatsoever. As pointed out by the BTB, this is a dramatic shift since the last poll, showing a 9% jump in support in only the last six weeks. Anomaly? Maybe. But let's hope that it's "the Iowa effect".

(Day 318)

Gay Christian Network (GCN) - Side B

2009-04-22T21:19:00.000-07:00

So today, I post about the Side B essay that I recently read on Gay Christian Network (check here for the side A posting). As you probably know, I am a "side A" person, so I'm going to be more critical today of the essay, compared to my relatively mild post yesterday.

If you wish to read the essay, please go here.

Ron starts out by saying he doesn't agree with judgmental attitudes, but that doesn't exclude our calling something a sin.

Thus we must never pass judgment on anyone, because we do not know their heart or all of the hidden reasons behind their actions. But we must always bear witness to the Truth revealed by Christ, because it is that Truth which will set all of us free from judgment (cf. John 8:32)

I agree that trying to tell the truth is different than judgment. However, this is a fine line many people cross. Many people.

About what the Bible speaks to, Ron says:

In his booklet, “What the Bible Says—and Doesn’t Say—about Homosexuality,” Mel White makes the following astonishing assertion: The Bible is a book about God. The Bible is NOT a book about human sexuality.
White explains: “The Bible is a book about God, about God’s love for the world and the people of the world. It is the history of God’s love at work rescuing, renewing, empowering humankind. It was never intended to be a book about human sexuality. Certainly, you will agree.”

Unfortunately (and I do not know whether to blame this on my genes or my home environment growing up), I cannot agree with Mel’s assertion. Let me give a slightly different example: suppose someone said, The Bible is a book about God. It is NOT a book about human love. Would such a dichotomy make sense?

So I agree and disagree with Ron here. I agree with his strictest reading of Mel White's words that the Bible may be about (have components of) human sexuality; this is, of course, because the Bible does talk about sex, so that is in essence about sexuality. But if I were to step back, I think what Mel White is referring to is about sexual orientation, which is not addressed in the Bible.

After asking the way to interpret what to keep in the Bible (from the Old and New Testaments), he discusses "natural law" that is written on the heart, concluding:

I would suggest, therefore, that the operative principle behind the Old and New Covenants can be expressed this way. At the creation of the world, God inscribed His will onto the human heart. If human beings had not sinned, that knowledge of His will could still be discerned without confusion or struggle. But because of sin, God is hidden from us, and we are strongly tempted to obscure even what we can see of Him.

In this, I find that Ron is actually approaching the same idea as discussed yesterday of "cultural" and "transcultural" ideas in scripture. In short, some things are culturally based and not necessarily a moral issue to the Gentiles, while transcultural things are already practiced by most Gentiles because of the "natural law" written on their hearts. Of course, this will be difficult to transfer into a meaningful approach later on, since the whole point is that the Gentiles of today are divided on the issue of gay marriage (even, you might say, in favor of gay marriage according to their hearts).

In referencing how Jesus dealt with sexual sins in the Gospels (John 8:3-11), Ron ends:

The second lesson to be drawn from Christ’s treatment of sexual sin, then, is that He is concerned with redemption, not punishment.

Indubitably. But we've yet to say whether gay sex = sin!

Starting to finally roll into "God's plan for sexuality", Ron writes:

Jesus’ dialogue with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Matthew 19:3-12) illuminates a third key element of His sexual ethic. A group of Pharisees approached Him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
Jesus answered: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female (cf. Genesis 1:27), and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ (cf. Genesis 2:24)? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Some have argued that the creation stories in Genesis are just stories, that they describe the origins of the human race in a sort of mythical way, but they don’t have any prescriptive force—that is, they don’t tell us the way things are supposed to be, they just tell us the way things were. It seems to me, however, difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus appeals to Genesis precisely because they did have prescriptive force, telling us what God intended sexuality to be “from the beginning.”

Now it's getting juicy! First, just because Jesus quotes something doesn't mean that he was preparing the verse to be used in all ways over all time to justify all sorts of things. I think that what may "seem" to Ron to be straightforward does not seem the same to me. Here Jesus uses the Genesis references in order to make a point about divorce (and consequently, the nature of marriage). But this does not necessarily translate into Jesus talking about it always being male and female. A generalization would be that Jesus is instead refering to people joined in marriage (regardless of gender).

Second, I'm finding it annoying that just because a passage refers to male and female that the essayist assumes that it is making a statement about human sexuality. When I talk about men's and women's basketball teams, I am not in any way referring to sexuality ... I'm just talking about a sport. I really wish that he were not flippant about the use of the word "sexuality".

Finally, if Genesis has prescriptive force (as Ron's arguing), I have some other prescriptions for Ron:

To the woman he [the Lord] said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

and

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Perhaps Ron should be chastising us all for 1) trying to reduce the pain in childbirth through modern anesthetics, 2) letting women not be ruled over all the time, 3) men painfully toiling the earth up until their dying days, and 4) sweating out in the fields instead of sitting comfortably in our air conditioned office buildings. What's more, the LORD himself prescribed all of these to man and woman ... it cannot be much more proscriptive than that, eh?

Ron goes on into God's creation of the sexes, stating:

The division of the human race into two distinct genders who both participate in child rearing is not a biological necessity. An atheist can regard it as an accident; but a Christian who believes that God intimately guided the creation must accept that the details of creation have significance, especially when Christ explicitly points to them as significant.

Actually, I (as a Christian) do not believe that God intimately guided every aspect of creation that we see today. I know it's craaaaazy to think, but I believe in ::gasp:: evolution, and that the love of God for humanity is not contingent on the exact genes they evolved, nor the shape their body ended up, nor the fact that mammals evolved to have two sexes as a way to procreate most efficiently to outpace their predators. And I fail to see how Christ has explicitly pointed to "male and female" as the significant part of this passage.

Marching on into male-female complementarity:

It is especially important to defend the principle of male-female complementarity in our culture, where it is not merely the cultural manifestations of complementarity that have come under attack, but the very notion of complementarity itself. With those who argue that the theological principles articulated by Paul can be applied differently in a different cultural situation, I think very productive dialogue about cultural norms is possible. But with those who deny Paul’s theological principles, I think dialogue about cultural application is impossible, because there is no common ground of jointly accepted theological principles. To those who reject complementarity in principle, I think we can only say (as politely and as humbly as possible), “you reject the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of your own culture” (cf. Mark 7:8).

I (as politely and as humbly as possible) think that in a book that Ron has already shown to have plenty of cultural manifestations, to consider that male-female complementarity may just be another of those issues. I go even so far as to say that perhaps Paul, as much as he had already changed from the Jew he had been, was perhaps holding fast to his traditional understanding of the sexes. Ron does bring up an interesting point that this complementarity is mentioned along with God, Christ, and the Church. Indeed, this seems a stronger argument. However, I yet feel that the point of the passage and its theological implications can remain as we consider the example it brings up (patriarchical hierarchies), yet reject the underlying cultural the example is based on (the patriarchy itself).

Ron then discusses briefly each of the "clobber passages", which I won't go into, because they are so often addressed. He then finishes with some conclusions, including:

But because love is the heart of the Gospel, Satan always tries to fool us with counterfeits of true love. Against these counterfeits, the Apostles and Prophets warn us again and again. God is love, and so nothing that is against His will can be love. He only approves of certain kinds of love, but punishes His people for loving idols, foreign women in the case of Israel, foreign deities, multiple wives, money, sexual love between close relations (incest), etc.

We do not always understand these prohibitions; God’s reasons for forbidding gay relationships may seem like dim shadow in a mirror to us when we first confront them. But it is love, not understanding, which God most desires from us. To place our hopes in Him even when we do not understand His ways is a mark of great faith, and even greater love.

Ron and I obviously don't see eye to eye. And whereas he must end his arguments saying that God's reasons for forbidding a gay relationship are mysterious, a dim shadow in a mirror, something which we need to have faith to believe, I offer a different view. I offer up the idea that God has reasons for allowing gay relationships, that these reasons are visible and obvious, that they cut to the very heart of God and his love for humanity and how that love is meant to be shared in order to better understand God, and that our faith is obvious by what we do, not just by clinging to our non-understanding of God's commandments which lead us to be stuck in the past instead of progressing to a whole and fruitful understanding of God.

(Day 312)

Gay Christian Network (GCN) - Side A

2009-04-21T21:18:00.000-07:00

In setting up the gay Christian registered student organization (RSO) on the University campus, I first met with Nick, the guy who dreamed up the idea. Through talking he reminded me of GCN, the gay Christian network. Having not gone for a while, I began to peruse and saw that an essay supporting the Side A and an essay supporting the Side B had been posted. In reading through them, I felt like giving each a little comment.

So today are the Side A comments, and tomorrow (or later) will be Side B. As a reminder of (or initiation into) the terminology, "side A" on GCN are people who feel that loving, monogamous, homosexual relationships are good, rather than a sin, in the sight of God.

To read the Side A essay, you can go here.

Justin writes:

The passages that mention those acts (often called "clobber passages," but I don't care for that term) could be interpreted in two ways. They might condemn only those specific acts and situations, or they might condemn all homosexual behaviors for all time, regardless of situation. For instance, when the Bible speaks negatively of "tax collectors," we realize that it's not talking about modern IRS agents. Tax collectors in Jesus' day were frequently corrupt and cheated people out of more money than they owed. So when the Bible talks about "tax collectors," it's not condemning all tax collectors for all time; it's condemning the specific behaviors of the tax collectors at that time.

I appreciated this example; usually I have reached for women or slavery issues, but this is a much more straightforward example that many people will have no qualms to agree to it.

About the argument that "sex is for procreation", he writes:

The Bible never says that sex must always be used for procreation. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that sex is for other purposes as well; it forms a bond between people (1 Cor. 6:16) and is a marital responsibility (1 Cor. 7:3-5). Procreation is only one part of the reason for sex, and many couples have sex on a regular basis without ever conceiving (sometimes by choice; other times not).

I hadn't thought about the Biblical passages which would refute/bring into question this argument. These few verses will work nicely!

On the absence of same-sex marriages in the Bible, he writes:

Many things aren't mentioned in the Bible, either because they weren't part of the culture at that time (e.g. computer porn) or because they weren't especially important issues to the Biblical authors (e.g. masturbation). In cases like these, we use general Biblical principles to address the issue, relying on the Holy Spirit for guidance.

I concur. For instance, I was having a hard time recently thinking about the Biblical pros and cons of genetic engineering ... probably because people writing the Bible didn't even know what a genome was!

About Sodom and Gomorrah:

The only reason people today think of Sodom as "a gay city" is that passage in Genesis 19 where two angels come to warn Lot of the city's impending destruction, and the men of the city respond to these visitors by forming an angry mob and threatening to gang rape them. What most people don't know is that this isn't an isolated incident in Scripture. Judges 19 tells a very similar story about a town mob threatening to gang rape a male visitor in the city of Gibeah, though in that story they end up murdering his concubine instead. Does this mean that in Bible times, the landscape was dotted with "gay cities" everywhere that loved to rape men? Of course not. A threat of gang rape should be interpreted as an act of humiliating violence - a way of saying to a visitor, "You are not welcome here; we're the big dogs."

I am always baffled when I hear people try to use Genesis 19 as an anti-gay argument ... Lot's response to their demand for the visitors is to give them his daughter. Besides being pretty awful for the daughter, you'd think we'd ask "why would offering his daughter help if they're all gay men?"

About culture, the Bible, and the church:

To be perfectly frank, the only reason we're having this debate now about same-sex relationships instead of about women speaking in church is that our culture's standards have changed.

He goes on to state things I agree with. We don't require men to have short hair, women to stay silent in church, women to wear head coverings, among other things stated in the New Testament. And this is not because those were never followed; in fact, many were quoted at those "in the wrong" throughout the 20th century.

About the fact that not all people fall into gender-normative categories:

You see, although they're rare, gender anomalies do exist. Many people have abnormalities that prevent them from being classified as male or female. Some have both sets of genitals; others have deformed genitals; some have bodies that don't match their chromosomes; others have chromosomes that aren't XX or XY; and still others have bodies that don't match their brains. It's a field that gets more and more complex the more you study it. Most of these people find a way of publicly identifying as male or female, but their bodies may in fact be more like the opposite gender, or anywhere in between.
Most of us are just glad not to have to deal with problems like that, so we simply put it out of our minds. But this is a very real problem that affects many real people.

I like how he states that most of us forget about this aspect which might make black and white, sin versus good judgments difficult. But he brings in the fact that these are people, people who have to find a way to make it in the world even when there are those who want to categorize people in a way that they might not fit into.

On how we can have a consistent standard to judge different passages:

The closest I've ever seen to a clear, consistent standard like this from a Traditionalist Christian is a book by William Webb entitled Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals. Mr. Webb realizes this is a problem for the Traditional View, and his book (published in 2001) is an attempt to fix this problem - to give us a clear, consistent standard to explain why the church has changed its mind on slavery and (to some degree) on women but shouldn't change its mind on homosexuality. When someone pointed me to this book recently, I thought, "At last! Someone on their side has recognized this problem and is trying to fix it!" (note: he then goes on to discuss his objections to the book.)

I am so glad he cited this book! This book is really what Jonas and I read through in great detail before coming to our decision. Yes, there were other books, and the Bible, but this one fed my engineer's quest for thorough and meaningful discussion of every issue in how to determine if a passage is cultural or transcultural. Read it!

After launching into and marching through a look at what God really demands from his rules and regulations, we get to this:

The Scriptures could hardly have been clearer in demanding circumcision for all who would worship God. So when the early Christians began to reach Gentiles with the gospel, they naturally expected these Gentiles to do the same thing God had demanded of all the past converts. The issue at stake wasn't whether Gentiles could become Christians; it was whether Gentiles could become Christians without first having to be circumcised.

The Gentiles were in the position many modern-day gay people are in. I doubt they had much theological knowledge or understanding of Scripture to back them up; all they knew was they were trusting this Jesus guy, and they were NOT about to let someone take a knife to them. The pro-circumcision group was probably a lot more pious and a lot better at quoting Scripture passages to back themselves up, and I imagine they made a lot of good arguments about tradition and the need to endure sacrifice and suffering for Christ's sake. Yet somehow, they were wrong.

I hadn't thought about the circumcision arguments for a while. I think the only reason we never think about it today is because it was settled by Paul at the time, so we just assume that he superseded the previous rules. But it's amazing to think that this one man could overturn the rules of God! And yet, that's what we accept on reading the Bible, all because of our notions that Paul got it all right.

On the passage Galations 3:28 (There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ... note that the italicized part is changed from the NIV to match the original Greek):

That's why I think it’s so interesting that Paul wrote this passage as he did. First he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” and the matter of inviting Greeks (i.e. Gentiles) into the Christian community was the first major controversy of the church. Then he says, “neither slave nor free,” and we know that the issue of slavery and the integration of the races was another huge hurdle that the church had to overcome to be what God intended. Finally Paul says, “no ‘male and female,’” and that’s the phrase we keep hearing in the current debate over gay couples in the church.

Put this way, could gay rights be the fulfillment of this passage by Paul?

And he sums it all up by saying:

But if you're fortunate enough to know a Christ-centered gay couple, you'll notice something remarkably different. These relationships are actually bearing good fruit. The fruit of the Spirit are in abundance in such relationships - love, joy, peace, patience, and all the rest. You can argue all you want about the meaning of this passage or that passage; the fact remains that I know monogamous, Christ-centered gay couples whose relationships are living proof of God's blessing on them. Bad trees don't bear good fruit.

Jonas would say exactly the same thing. Amen!

(Day 310)

Top 10 Spoofs

2009-04-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

A friend recently posted a link to the top 10 spoofs of the NOM anti-gay marriage ad. I particularly liked their #1 video, which is embedded below.

(Dat 310)

NYTimes Op-Ed

2009-04-19T21:10:00.000-07:00

Related to the previous post about NOM's "Gathering Storm" advertisement (and subsequent spoofs), there recently appeared an op-ed in the NYTimes which discusses why there has been nary a peep from many of the usual anti-gay marriage crowd.

(Day 309)

Friends' posts regarding Day of Silence

2009-04-19T20:41:00.000-07:00

A friend I know through my husband has just posted great thoughts about what Christians can do on the Day of Silence. They may seem simple. But I think they're worth remembering, especially when simple things seem to be thrown out the door when it comes to the issue of homosexuality and the Church.

A separate acquaintance who is a local pastor spoke at the breaking of silence rally on the Day of Silence here at the university. His speech is likewise thought-provoking and is recorded here.

(Day 309)

The Economist does gay marriage

2009-04-17T16:54:00.000-07:00

For those of you who know me, I love The Economist news magazine. So you might imagine how thrilled I was when they wrote a story praising my home state of Iowa, as well as discussing the gay marriage changes in Iowa and in Vermont.

Check out the article here.

(Day 307)

Gay ... AND Christian?

2009-04-16T18:23:00.000-07:00

For reasons that I will enumerate in a future blog posting, I believe that the future of the gay community lay in engaging with Christian communities in the United States. So perhaps you can imagine my delight when I, while reading the University LGBT Resources Office weekly newsletter, noticed this posting:

GAY and CHRISTIAN?

I am interested in trying to start a RSO (registered student organization) Christian group that is openly gay friendly. Being a gay Christian myself, I have found it incredibly difficult to find others like me. I know a lot of students turn away from religion because it is assumed that most religions are not accepting. And even though some groups that are already on campus will say that they won't turn anyone down, you can still feel the vibe that they believe you are in the wrong and are constantly judging you. If anyone else out there would be interested in helping organize a group that is an honest exploration of Christianity in a safe, nonjudgmental environment, please contact me.

Well, I for one was interested! Today I sat down with the undergrad student to discuss how to start things. The details I will save for another post. But we have something I wish to hear back on from you! You see, to register the organization, we need ... a name.

So if you have ideas, please let me know. The time horizon is unfortunately short, as we plan to register the organization with the University tomorrow at ~3:30pm central. Should it be obvious, like "Gay Christian Students"? Or perhaps more creative, like "Genesis 3:13" (go ahead, look it up)?

Whatever your ideas, I'd love to hear them. And soon!

(Day 306)

To invite his parents?

2009-04-14T21:22:00.000-07:00

As I previously posted, Jonas and I will be heading to Iowa to get married (again).

On June 14, 2008 when we were married in our local Quaker Meeting in Illinois, we were surrounded by many friends from school and from church, as well as from my side of the family. But Jonas' immediate family had only one attendee, his youngest brother.

His parents' absence was a stinging blow and brought to the forefront the reality that his parents would not be quick to acknowledge the relationship we were in. Over time, Jonas and I have covered over the wound and been encouraged by the tokens of progress occasionally tossed our way from his parents.

Now that we are faced with marriage again, though in significantly scaled back proportions compared to our original religious wedding, a friend brought up the possibility of inviting his parents.

It was a thought neither of us had considered. Could this be the do-over that we thought we'd never have? Could his parents be interested in being there to celebrate with us? Would they want to come? Would their presence diminish or enhance the occasion? And how will we as a couple feel about having Jonas' parents present?

During a small-group Quaker meeting tonight, I posed some of these questions and asked for thoughts. Two were offered, which were: 1) We were wounded greatly by the first rejection we received from his parents; if we were rejected a second time, would we be wounded to the same degree, such that we would want to avoid it? 2) Would we be willing to give up the option of inviting them and have them say "yes"?

These and many more questions in the same vein continue to pass through our minds. If any of you have helpful thoughts, we'd love to hear them!

(Day 304)

2M4M

2009-04-14T21:12:00.000-07:00

First alerted to this by BoxTurtleBulletin.com, I found it was quickly picked up by the mainstream web and, as often occurs, people ran with it and did amazingly creative things!

First, what's the deal? Listen to Rachel Maddow explain:

The response, also courtesy of BTB, was the wonderful website "Two Men For Marriage". Please visit and enjoy the set-up. I particularly enjoy the photo of the father-son discussion happening while resting on farm equipment.

(Day 304)

Economic impact of gay marriage in Iowa, other states

2009-04-06T17:03:00.000-07:00

The Des Moines Register has a great feed for its gay marriage-related stories, linked here.

My favorite article so far? The economic impact of gay marriage. There are the obvious benefits, such as wedding expenses. But there are less intuitive ones too, such as reductions of Medicare expenses, as couples are able to support each other financially, and higher taxes for jointly-filing couples. The decision could "yield an estimated net gain of $5.3 million per year for Iowa state government." Not huge, but not negligible.

Also included in the UCLA study is the "predict[ion] that 2,917 same-sex Iowa couples will wed in the three years after the marriages are allowed to proceed. In addition, nearly 55,000 out-of-state couples could come to Iowa to get married." Sure, these are estimates, but that's an amazing number of couples who could enter the mainstream and be granted legal marriage licenses!

(Day 297)

Decisions await!

2009-04-06T12:07:00.000-07:00

Some of you may have guessed it already, but I have not officially stated it. So here goes. I'm going to get married.

Again.

The first time was, of course, my religious marriage with the local Quaker Meeting. But this time it will be a bona fide legal marriage from the state of Iowa, granting us a license. It won't be valid when we're in Illinois, but it will work just fine when we're visiting my family in Iowa. And it should be more than enough once civil unions get passed here, as Illinois will likely grant it as proof of our being a couple.

Of course, this marriage brings up a few issues. For instance, what day will I show at the end of each post on this blog? Will it be since June 14, 2008? Or some soon-to-come day in 2009? Or both?

Another question mentioned by my husband on his blog is about the line on the marriage form that asks for the groom's name after marriage.

We had heard from couples that having a same last name is good, particularly when children are involved. We hadn't thought about this recently, as we thought kids were still years off and marriage was an even more distant possibility. But now it's upon us. Will we combine last names, producing a hybrid? Or choose a name of some deceased famous person we respect? Or find a name by other means? We don't know. But our most recent idea is to search our genealogies to find out if we have forebears who had a common last name. If so, perhaps it could once again become a common last name, only this time for a couple at the intersection of the two family trees.

Hopefully there are not too many other decisions that will have to be made. The name decision should be more than enough!

(Day 297)

Why will Iowa be different than California?

2009-04-05T07:10:00.000-07:00

I wish to address a comment left on this blog, which said, in effect, "California overturned their gay marriage. What makes Iowa different?" Great question!

Before I start, I should mention there is a distinct possibility that gay marriage could be overturned in Iowa. As pointed out, Iowa is seen as more conservative than California. And conservatives tend to vote against gay marriage to a greater degree than do liberals.

But there are differences which give me hope for Iowa. After spending a long time pondering the question, I think some reasons for the difference:

1) Iowa has only marginally more conservatives. A look at California voting pattern shows that in 2008, the Obama-McCain split was 61-37 (a 24-pt spread) and in 2004, the Bush-Kerry split was 45-54 (9-pt spread). In Iowa, 2008 results were 54-45 (9-pt spread) and in 2004 were 50-49 (1-pt spread). 2008 was actually abnormal in being such a large difference between the two states, with 2004 being more the norm. Iowa has more conservatives, but in general where California is a 60-40 liberal-to-conservative state, Iowa is a 50-50 state.

2) Pro-gay groups in California were complacent. California was a test for pro-gay campaigners, one which they failed miserably. The Advocate did a post-mortem on the campaign for "No on Prop 8" and came to the conclusion that a large portion of the fault lay with those running the campaign in thinking that California would swing their direction. Iowa will be different. Nobody will assume Iowa will be an easy ride. But moreover, every pro-gay marriage group will have large incentive to cover up their past mistakes by putting in an over-the-top effort to help maintain same-sex marriage in Iowa.

3) Iowa's constitution is hard to change. California is singularly unique in how easy it is for citizens to change its state constitution; all that is required is a simple majority vote (50% plus 1 vote) and any addition or subtraction can be made from the constitution, provided it does not abrogate "core rights". Iowa is not the same, in that all changes require ballot measures that must be approved by two consecutive legislative sessions prior to being put before the voters. Whereas the California constitution has been amended/revised "500 times by referendum and about 40 times by initiatives since its adoption in 1879", the Iowa constitution has only been amended 36 times since 1857. This difference will make it much more difficult to change. The closer comparison for Iowa is Massachussets, which also requires consecutive sessions for a ballot initiative and has never gotten it passed, rather than California. Another state that comes to mind is Indiana, which is quite conservative, but still has not voted for a gay marriage ban because the legislature has still not passed the ballot intiative in two consecutive sessions.

4) Time is on the side of civil same-sex marriage. People don't like changing the status quo, and so over the short term, a decision to change toward same-sex marriage will not sit well with many people. But over a longer period of time, people will become acclimated to the new decision. Moreover, it becomes exceedingly difficult to call null-and-void the marriage of those couples who are already married (this is a key problem being considered by the courts now in California). In 3 or 4 years when voters are perhaps able to vote on this issue, they will see that the state hasn't fallen apart. They will see thousands of couples who have been married and would have to be divorced. And they will see additional states where marriage and/or civil unions are permitted. California will soon rule, perhaps reinstating marriage and, even if not there will be a 2010 ballot initiative which will potentially reverse it. Vermont and New Hampshire will vote for gay marriage. New Jersey, Maine, and New York may be shortly behind. The landscape will be quite different in 2013/14, which will help reinforce the maintenance of same-sex marriage in Iowa.

Now, let's just hope that the above reasons are enough and same-sex marriage stays!

(Day 296)

Details on the Iowa Supreme Court marriage case

2009-04-04T16:14:00.000-07:00

First, I must express once again how ecstatic I am about the Varnum v. Brien ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court, which has ruled that gay couples may marry under Iowa state law. I had been anxiously holding my breath since I found out the ruling would be announced on Friday morning. Believe me, there was a huge sigh of relief after hearing the positive outcome!

I have read the summary document for the court's decision and found it quite good at explaining the general outline for how and why the court made its current decision. I will quote some of the 7-page document here:

1.0 Responsibility of the court:
"The Iowa Supreme Court has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong
and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion."

2.0 Equal protection under the law
Equal protection under the Iowa Constitution “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

2.1 How does the judiciary treat the legislature?
"Under Iowa’s tripartite system of government, courts give respect to the legislative process and presume its enactments are constitutional. The deference afforded to legislative policy-making is manifested in the level of scrutiny applied to review legislative action."

2.2 What standard is normally used to scrutinize the legislature?
"In most equal protection cases, the court applies a very deferential standard known as the “rational basis test.”"

2.3 In what cases is there tougher scrutiny?
"Classifications based on race, alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are, however, evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard. Classifications subject to strict scrutiny are presumptively invalid and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest."

2.4 Are there other types of scrutiny?
"The court also recognized that an intermediate tier has been applied to statutes classifying persons on the basis of gender or illegitimacy. Under this level of scrutiny, a party seeking to uphold the statute must demonstrate the challenged classification is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective."

3.0 Application of equal protection is for "similarly situated" people: are gay people "similarly situated" as heterosexuals for the purposes of civil marriage?
"‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’ All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently, any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise, “similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike."

4.0 Does sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny by the court?
"The next issue addressed by the court was whether sexual orientation is a suspect class entitled to a heightened level of scrutiny beyond rational basis. Four factors utilized in determining whether certain legislative classifications warrant a more demanding constitutional analysis were considered. ... In its analysis, the court found each factor supported a finding that classification by sexual orientation warranted a heightened scrutiny. ... Based upon the above analysis, the court proceeded to examine Iowa’s same-sex marriage ban under an intermediate scrutiny standard."

5.0 Addressing issues raised by plantiff as to why to exclude gays from marriage

5.1 Maintaining traditional marriage
"The court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the
court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. [emphasis added] ... Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples ..."

5.2 Promotion of optimal environment to raise children
"The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. ... The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. ... The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents."

5.3 Promotion of procreation
"Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage."

5.4 Promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships
"The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex
marriage more stable."

5.5 Conservation of state resources
"Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. ... However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective."

6.0 Religious opposition to same-sex marriage
"Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.""

For those of you who would like to read the documents firsthand, these can be obtained at the following link: Iowa Supreme Court, Varnum v. Brien.

As some closing remarks, I particularly liked to see the justices address the religious opposition. They clearly state that 1) some religions are opposed, while others are supported ... usually we only hear about those who are opposed, and 2) marriage as licensed by the state is a civil institution and does not pretend to impose upon or be imposed upon by religious groups.

(Day 295)

Iowa Supreme Court allows gay marriage!

2009-04-03T06:53:00.000-07:00

I haven't been able to access the court site, but it's reported here!

I cannot express how excited I am!

More to come later ...

(Day 293)

Iowa Supreme Court ruling to be released tomorrow!

2009-04-02T21:04:00.000-07:00

That's right, after a mere 4 months of anticipation, the Iowa Supreme Court will be releasing its decision sometime tomorrow prior to 8:30am.

I find that something I have hoped for is within grasp, but may be yanked away in less than 24 hours. While I have been somewhat apprehensive ever since the oral arguments in December, it's now becoming so concrete and real. There'll be no more wondering.

Will it be a step forward? Or hold Iowa back?

Or, will I be proud of my home state? Or will I have to feel a little less of it?

(Day 292)

2009-03-15T22:16:00.000-07:00

Pomoprophet just posted a link to this GCN trailer for "Through my eyes". It reminds me of all the things my husband and I have gone through, from the moments we first became evangelicals and were heavily involved in their ministries, to the end, when we were forced to leave because they did not believe gay relationships could be godly.

source: Postmodern Prophet

(Day 274)

Response to Westboro Baptist

2009-03-15T16:59:00.001-07:00

Someone was amazingly creative in their response to Westboro Baptist Church (which my husband and I visited earlier this year) and the church's "God Hates Fags" campaign.

So I present you with the following Truth:
God Hates Figs. (click for a larger version)

Seriously, he does. The Bible says so!

source: boxturtlebulletin.com

(Day 274)

Love Story

2009-03-02T21:00:00.000-08:00

If you have a radio set on modern pop music, you've probably recently heard the song "Love Story" by Taylor Swift. One lyric in particular pops out at me:
Romeo save me, they're trying to tell me how to feel
This love is difficult but it's real,
Don't be afraid we'll make it out of this mess,
It's a love story baby just say yes.

There's something that resonates deeply in me with those who tried to say how my husband and I should feel before we got married, how everything was difficult. But we kept going because that love was not some fanciful vision, but it was real.

So very real.

(Day 261)

Cru/LGBT Panel Discussion - Final Comments

2009-02-25T22:34:00.000-08:00

These are comments that didn’t fit easily above, but were at the forefront of my mind. They follow in no particular order:

1) We yet have a distance to travel. I mentioned authenticity on the part of Cru, and I thank them for that. But in that authenticity I saw things I’d left behind after being asked to leave evangelicalism and which I had not experienced in the interim. For instance, nobody I know now (not even my still evangelical friends) would use the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” around me. Nor would they use the “parts don’t fit” argument about male and female genitalia. So you can imagine that the authenticity on display was a little disheartening. This was a group that is kind enough to discuss LGBT issues, but that has not made them immune from the language and arguments that mill about the Christian talk circuit when it comes to gay issues. But in it I can see hope, because of the fact that my evangelical friends no longer think I have a lifestyle that is different than theirs, nor do they see the logic in the parts-don’t-fit argument. My hope is that the discussion began to push us to a better understanding of each other and of the truth.

2) There are times when evangelizing just won’t work. One time was during this discussion. There were questions being asked and in general Cru did not focus on answering those questions. This is not to say that the explanation of their worldview is completely irrelevant. But when a question is asked and the Cru panelist then spends 7 minutes on a pre-written explanation of God and the Israelites, and then has to say “now to get back to the question”, and then spend maybe 2 minutes answering the question, that is a problem. It shows a disrespect of question as not having been worthy of an in-depth answer, and it shows a disrespect of the questioner, who truly desired to hear a well-thought out answer.

3) Escaping that Christian bubble. As quoted in the Daily Illini, Steve Elworth said “We want people to talk and not be in our own bubbles.” The same was said by a Cru panelist, mentioning the phrase “Christian bubble”. I could not agree more, we all (Christian or not!) need to break out of our bubbles. I felt, however, that the Cru panel could have done more to break out of their “Christian bubble” to reach their intended audience. Much of the language stated is taken for granted in evangelical circles but it unintelligible to a secular person with no religious background. Phrases like “we live in a fallen world”, “give our whole selves to God”, etc. These are obvious to Christians, but what does “fallen world” mean? That everything is sinful? That some things are imperfect and others aren’t? What does it mean to “give our whole selves to God”? Do we only read the Bible and evangelize (as some denominations do)? Do we give up all material possessions? These are the obvious ones … there were others that were even less obvious and should’ve been dropped in order to more clearly communicate.

4) The Daily Illini article had two comments. The first was “so cru wants to be heard, but really they won’t be listening to others”. This was followed by another commenter agreeing wholeheartedly. We cannot move on if we maintain an attitude like that of the commenters. When we see sincerity, even if just a glimmer, we need to pursue and expand it, hoping that it will bear fruit. Those commenters probably didn’t attend this discussion and so they will never have seen the good things that I mentioned above. Nor will they have seen what work yet remains. We cannot move toward resolution if both sides do not work out of good faith at the effort.

5) All undergraduate student panelists have advantages and disadvantages. In some respects, I really liked the people on the panel for being of an age group where they are organizing these events, discussing the issues, and taking control of the world around them. But in other respects, there are levels of maturity and thought that increase with age. I do not want us to have 50 year old pastors, but it would have been nice to perhaps have a little older voices on campus (e.g. graduate students) or undergraduates who have put a lot of time into studying these issues (a lot of time meaning more than just the previous week preparing for the panel).

6) Christian gays and gay Christians. One audience member made the best suggestion for future panels that I heard. He stated that it seems the discussion would have been more fruitful if some of the Cru panel were not only Christians, but were gay and so understood their situation, and if some of the LGBT panel were not only gay, but were also Christian and so understood their worldview. I couldn’t agree more. Cru is a large organization and, considering that evangelical churches have a higher proportion of gays than the general population, they certainly have some members who are preeminently qualified to sit on the panel. The LGBT community is likewise large and has multiple Christians (I could have filled the panel two times over with qualified gay Christians I personally know). Yes, LGBT people are diversity-oriented, and having religious diversity is valued as well. But this discussion was less about our desire to value religious diversity and more about the need to address concerns of the evangelical religious community. This would have been best addressed by seating LGBT members who are evangelicals, who have recently been evangelicals, or who are intimately familiar with evangelical doctrines and culture. As the apostle Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, he became all things to all men for the sake of the gospel. The Cru panel needs to step up their game if they hope to be seen as becoming a “gay” to share the truth of God to the gay community; in lieu of that, they can at least put a gay Christian on the panel. The LGBT community, even if you don’t put much faith in the Bible, Paul’s words hold truth to them, and there was little evidence that the panelists could speak to the concerns that evangelicals have regarding homosexuality.

My final comment is that I found the panel beneficial and I can only hope to participate in the event, either as a panelist or as an audience member, at the next one that occurs!

CRU/LGBT Panel Discussion - How Cru performed poorly

2009-02-25T22:32:00.000-08:00

Here are some ways I felt Cru performed poorly.

1) VERBOSITY. The Cru panelists, likely out of worry that they might offend LGBT members because of their beliefs, treaded lightly over any thorny issues. However, they did so by waltzing around questions, rather than answering them, giving responses that implied the answer but did not directly say it. This was poor form. For instance, one panelist used the analogy that “that question is asking about step 10, but we need to first go to step one, and then step two …” While this is a response, it is not an answer to the question posed; the question was not about step one, but rather about step 10. LGBT audience members already know that Cru does not condone homosexual relationships. That’s right, they already knew. So when the panelists danced around the issue, the LGBT audience saw it as a farce. They came for discussion, and discussion can only happen when both sides are frank with each other.

2) MODERATION. The moderation of the debate provided a great introduction to the rules of the debate, how much time each side would have, how to ask questions, and other relevant information. It was brilliant to have text messages for asking questions; particularly young LGBT people can be out for blood and revenge, so requiring the textual means of asking questions has amazing potential. However, the debate moderation was poorly done during the question and answer session. Particularly poor was when the audience directly started asking questions to the panelists, rather than going through the text message medium agreed upon ahead of time. This began to lead to chaos in the audience and disrespected those who were following the instructions. Future moderation should ensure that all people follow the rules and the audience saves interactions for following the discussion.

3) PREPARATION. First, I should state that it is obvious that the Cru panel prepared for this discussion. They had thoughts about theology and worldviews that flowed from one panelist to the next in a way that was predetermined. That said, they could have extended that preparation to the answering of the actual questions in certain cases. The most prominent example was question 4, which asked about Rachel and Leah, as well as the Roman centurion and his servant. While bringing up David and Jonathan (which hadn’t been specifically asked, so this required thinking), the answers were quite short in an unsatisfactory manner. The audience to address on this is your LGBT audience, and their knowledge of these passages may be quite detailed, since their only interest in the Bible may be these small snippets. To simply say that Rachel and Leah were fighting over a man doesn’t answer any of the “gay theology” out there on this passage. On the Roman centurion and his servant, the answer appeared even more flip, being “I don’t see what in this passage might make you think it’s a homosexual relationship.” If this is what the panelist truly thought, it seems that they did not do their homework, which would have turned up the original Greek language arguments floating around in recent scholarship. No, we should not have a Classic Greek class in this discussion; but we should acknowledge that there may be something there more than just meets the eye.

4) AGENDA. Perhaps you’ve heard of the “gay agenda”. Regardless of its Hello-Kitty-bound existence or lack thereof, there is definitely a “Christian agenda” in evangelicalism (believe me, I used to pursue it). Often the agenda is referred to evangelism, spreading the truth about God. Before an LGBT audience, it may be one of the few times you can ever evangelize so many gays at one time. But, and this is important, it is not the right time to evangelize them! When Steve Elworth was interviewed by the Daily Illini, he stated the goals were 1) to form relationships with each other and 2) to learn more about each other. As a disclaimer, I think spreading the truth and doing so through evangelization is a noble pursuit. But as I learned in church, evangelization is best done in relationships, such that people will accept the information. I do not envy the position Cru was placed in that night, trying to explain their worldview but not coming off as preaching the gospel to the heathen. But having talked to many LGBT audience members, it appeared to many that the line had been crossed and answers were left unaddressed at the expense of explaining the evangelical worldview.

CRU/LGBT Panel Discussion - How LGBT performed poorly

2009-02-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

Here are some ways the LGBT panelists and audience performed poorly.

1) DEFENSIVENESS. While most panelists were very easy-going, one panelist in particular took offense at multiple questions during the Q&A. I will not say that the offense was undue, as each person carries their own history and their own baggage. However, bringing such baggage into the conversation reflected poorly on the LGBT panel, particularly when the panel can best dispel misinformation and miscommunication through a neutral non-attacking position.

2) AUDIENCE. The LGBT audience, during the question and answer session, acted at times like sharks in the water having just caught the scent of blood. This became most apparent during the question on “Where does Jesus say anything about homosexuality in the Bible?” While the Cru panelist opened the answer up to the audience, the LGBT audience members saw an opportunity to pounce … and they did. Voices started being raised, words started being spoken over other speakers, and frustration was evident. It was obvious that some in the crowd were looking for a bit of confrontation, rather than just discussion.

3) STATISTICS. I must admit, I was worried about this discussion when I heard about it ahead of time. This was because previous debates I have attended or seen recordings of can have both sides, but in my experience Christians in particular, abuse statistics to support their side. Imagine my pleasure when the entire panel discussion went without the quotation of a single statistic. Bravo both panels. However, in the middle of the sharks-in-the-water mentioned above, one woman broke out statistics on teen suicide and depression. Whoa there! These statistics were used not to ask a question; rather they were used to attack. This was wrong, and I wish that the LGBT panelist who felt defensive on other questions had seen this attack and disowned the methods used by this audience member.

4) FOCUS. In short, they didn’t connect with the Christian audience. Evangelical audiences have a lingo, just as an LGBT audience has their own lingo. The panelists did not have this Christian-ese language, and so the comments were less likely to be received. Everything they said may have been spot-on, but if it’s not transposed into the language of the Christian worldview, it’s hard to believe it would find fertile ground. It’s difficult to think that a group that is evangelizing during their answers were going to be swayed by LGBT answers that made little-to-no mention of God or of things Christian.

CRU/LGBT Panel Discussion - How Cru performed well

2009-02-25T22:26:00.000-08:00

Below are some of the major ways that Cru performed well.

1) ORGANIZATION. Cru were the ones who initiated this panel, contacting the LGBT office and putting forth the proposal. In my mind this is the biggest thing Cru did well. In my experience, it is rare that Christians will seek out opportunities to have a dialogue with LGBT people. They deserve major kudos for organizing this and showing up in large numbers.

2) AUTHENTICITY. The panelists were making an effort to speak to the crowd, including (or primarily) the LGBTQA members. The audience questions were obviously (see final comments section) not pre-screened, nor were they coached. They were just unadulterated questions from the audience. The apparent sincerity helps engender trust between the LGBT and Christian communities.

3) DEMEANOR. Cru panelists weren’t pushy. They weren’t angry. They weren’t overly insistent. Instead, they had a certain sangfroid that kept them level-headed during the discussion. There were times where humility was on display, which is bonus points too!

CRU/LGBT Panel Discussion - How LGBT performed well

2009-02-25T22:24:00.000-08:00

Here are some of the big ways I feel the LGBT panelists performed well.

1) ANSWERS. The panel was on message. The panelists read the questions and sincerely tried to answer them in a straightforward manner. That said, the panelists were decently concise, but without leaving out so much detail as to be vague. This avoidance of verbosity and meandering thoughts permitted the panel to drive one or two single points home to the audience. While given a total of 45 minutes each, in the end the LGBT panel didn’t come close to using up their allotted time.

2) APOLOGIES. The Cru panelists, on their second question, went person-by-person explaining their sins relating to relating to LGBT people. They also apologized on behalf of all Christians for the sins propagated against gays and the LGBT community at large. The LGBT panelists could have been unforgiving, rejecting the Cru panelists’ apologies for their past actions. While I believe that repenting should be done directly to the person against whom the sin was perpetrated, and that the forgiveness should be done directly by the person who was aggrieved, it was proper and civil for the panelists to acknowledge the apologies and validate the Cru panelists in their sincerity. But what the LGBT panel did next was absolutely amazing: they said that Cru, for all its sincerity, does not have the ability or right to properly apologize for all Christians and for all of their sins perpetrated. It’s not that they didn’t want to accept it; rather, such an apology did not have meaning that could be accepted. So the LGBT panelists were spot on in appreciating the personal apologies, but realizing that the blanket apology was not Cru’s to offer nor theirs to accept.

3) LANGUAGE. During the question and answer session, there were questions which were quite likely to have come from people who were not familiar with acceptable language in the gay community. We know this because of the use of no longer accepted language that was used. The first instance brought forth was the incessant use of the word “homosexual” to refer to gay people. One of the panelists pointed this out, saying that “gay” or “queer” were more acceptable terms. [As an aside: the LGBT panelist was onto the right answer, but not quite there. “Queer” is actually not an acceptable alternative, except in certain LGBT-only circles. Instead, look to the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook. This guide to acceptable printed language now states that “gay” is preferable to “homosexual” … “except in clinical contexts or reference to sexual activity.” This is a codification of the discomfort that the panelist was feeling when hearing the word “homosexual” used in lieu of “gay”.] Almost immediately, the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” was used in back-to-back questions before being edited out. This phrase is incredibly hurtful and inaccurate to use when speaking about the LGBT community, and I am glad this was pointed out by a different panelist. [Aside: The AP Stylebook also states “avoid references … to a gay or alternative lifestyle.”] This discussion hopefully brought down some of these language barriers!

Cru/LGBT Panel Discussion - Questions asked of each panel by the audience

2009-02-25T22:22:00.000-08:00

After a ten-minute intermission, there was a question and answer session with questions that were collected via text message during the panelists’ discussion. Thus, this section was the one where there were no pre-planned answers. I will only list the questions, saving any responses and comments on such responses to the next few sections on how the panels performed well or poorly.

CRU Q: How can LGBT people be made to feel valuable in the church?
LGBT Q: Did you accept the apologies given by the CRU panel?
CRU Q: Do you homosexuality as an imperfection? Should gays repent?
LGBT Q: For the three panelists who did not respond, who do you feel Jesus is? What have been your experiences and interactions with his followers?
CRU Q: How do you accept an individual in the Christian community who believes that a homosexual lifestyle is pleasing to God?
LGBT Q: How do you accept an individual who is a Christian but who abstains from the homosexual lifestyle? (note: “homosexual lifestyle” was subsequently explained by the audience member to focus more on sexual desires)
CRU Q: Do you believe being gay is only about pleasure, or extends to who you choose to partner with regardless of gender?
LGBT Q: How do you accept an individual who is a Christian and yet decides to change their LGBT orientation believing it is wrong?
CRU Q: Where in the Bible does Jesus talk about homosexuality?
LGBT Q: You claim you were born with your orientation. How do you square this with the fact of human biology and the complementarity of male and female?
CRU Q: What if gays did choose their orientation, would this change the moral legitimacy of their actions?
LGBT Q: Do you feel that the Christian community has become more accepting of your orientation or is your experience that you still feel attacked?
Both Q: Do you ever consider that you may be wrong in your convictions about homosexuality? If so, how should this influence your actions?
LGBT Q: What can Christians do to make LGBT people feel better and more accepted?
Both Q: What question do you wish you had been asked by the other panel?
Both Q: Do you have any final comments to make?

Thus ended the night’s event, a mere 2 hours and 45 minutes after it began.

Cru/LGBT Panel Discussion - Questions asked of each panel by other panel

2009-02-25T22:21:00.000-08:00

While each panel went back to back on the questions, the LGBT panelists “won” the coin toss, so they were asked the first question. While I’m decent at accurate notes, I’m not fast with note-taking, so I did not get the full responses; instead, I summarize their responses in one sentence. Their five questions, and responses, were:

1) Q: What is the mission or purpose of your group?
A: To provide a safe-haven for LGBT members and to dispel misinformation about LGBT people.
2) Q: What do you see as the role of faith in the LGBT community?
A: The same role as in the straight community, where some will pursue religion and spirituality, while others will choose atheism or agnosticism.
3) Q: What do you think about Jesus? What is your personal experience with Christians and do you think it has been representative of Jesus?
A: One (of the four) panelists responded, saying they believe Jesus was a good role model, that their church is moving forward on the issue of gay acceptance, and that their experiences with Christians have been both positive and negative.
4) Q: What is wrong with the world and how would you go about changing it?
A: People are arrogant and see their worldview as the (only) right way.
5) Q: How can our groups partner together for good on campus? Are there any barriers preventing a lasting partnership to occur between our groups?
A: Both sides need to see each other, spend time together, with the LGBT office and all LGBT-related events being open to the public – that includes open to Christians.

Interleaved with the above LGBT questions were those for Cru panelists. The Cru questions, and responses, were as follow:

1) Q: How are people to appropriately handle Quad preachers?
A: Cru panelists do not condone the methods of the Quad preachers and feel the best way is to completely ignore them.
2) Q: What has changed in mainstream Christians that they’re willing to listen to our (LGBT) stories now? Why now?
A: After all panelists apologized for the ways they’ve been biased/prejudiced/discriminatory against LGBT people, they answered with the idea that 1980’s condemnation has been seen as an improper way to respond, due to the fact that everyone – Christians inclusive – are imperfect people who cannot follow the Law (of God).
3) Q: Many don’t feel or believe they chose their sexual orientation. How does Jesus’ message of love and acceptance lead some to conclude that gay relationships are against his word [sic]?
A: We’re all born imperfect and we need to give our whole selves over to God.
4) Q: What do you think of the purported homosexual relationships in the Bible, such as that between the Roman Centurion and his servant or between Rachel and Leah?
A: Surprised at not being asked about Jonathan and David’s “love more powerful than for a woman”, responded that Rachel and Leah were trying to sleep with a man, and that they didn’t see the homosexual element of the Roman Centurion.
5) Q: What do you think is the most effective way that we (both groups) could help LGBTQA students who are struggling to balance their faith and orientation?
A: Need to bring Jesus into the equation, realize we’re imperfect, and pursue better communication between the communities.

CRU/LGBT Panel Discussion - Overview

2009-02-25T22:20:00.000-08:00

Thursday night (February 19) there was a panel discussion to discuss issues related to the Christian and LGBT communities. The discussion, one in a five part series sponsored by Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ) about differing worldviews, brought together 4 Cru panelists and 4 LGBT panelists. Before a large crowd, composed of ~2/3 Cru and ~1/3 LGBT members, each group was posed five “difficult” questions by the other group, and each group had a sum of 45 minutes to answer these questions (~9 minutes per question). After having alternated between groups to answer each of their five questions, and after a ten minute break, there was a one hour question and answer session consisting of questions taken from the audience via text message.

This panel discussion is worthy of multiple blog postings, so I will be addressing aspects of the event as follows:

Questions asked of each panel by other panel
Questions asked of each panel by the audience
How LGBT performed well
How Cru performed well
How LGBT performed poorly
How Cru performed poorly
Final comments

That’s right, we have a lot to discuss!

Gay panel discussions

2009-02-18T20:37:00.000-08:00

For a few semesters now, I have been privileged to participate in PRIDE panels which speak before university classes of the Community Health class on human sexuality. This was particularly helpful for me when I had first been asked to leave the church I was in (hereby, we'll call it MoveOn.Church). But in recent semesters I'm now back at the helm, so I continue doing it more to promote the idea to others that gay people mostly just wanna be normal too.

After all, I get up there and I say I'm married ... to a man. That I go to church, at least one that accepts my relationship. That I want to have kids someday. That I miss sharing the same home as my husband. That I just want to have a good relationship with friends and family. My guess is none of this is sounding too radical ...

Today was my first of four panels, performed before an audience of ~200 people. At the end we always offer to stay and talk to people who wish to ask additional questions. Today we had three takers. They were:
1) A lesbian who said "how can I get involved? After all, we need some more gender diversity on this panel!" (Today our one female was MIA, so we had only 3 guys). It warmed my heart to see someone who finds value in what we do and wants to share in the work.
2) A woman who said "Have you been to the United Church of Christ?" Indeed, Jonas and I had been multiple times, visiting because the college pastor is a huge pro-gay proponent. While we ended up choosing the Quakers, it was interesting to hear this woman speak about how the college pastor's first question to her was about whether she was ok with pro-gay. If only more pastors were like that!
and
3) A woman (Roxanne) strode up and asked me point blank "that evangelical church you said you were in on campus, was that MoveOn.Church?" I was so surprised that at first I didn't know what to say. I immediately played back what I had said that day, thinking of whether I may have offended her by saying something disparaging about MoveOn.Church. You see, I make it a point 1) to never say the name of the church and 2) to not say uncharitable things about the church. So I told her it was indeed MoveOn.Church that I had left. This launched into a full-fledged conversation about, of all things, how she was leaving the church. No, not because she was gay. But instead because of the inability of the church leadership to adapt in a way that brings about meaningful spirituality for the church members. While this matched what I remembered, it was interesting to hear that two years after I had last been to a church service in that congregation that they were yet hemorrhaging people and their talents. I once again felt torn between rejoicing that people were dispersing to find another church and being saddened that people were not feeling that the church was a place they could experience meaningful growth in their lives.

Overall, quite an eventful panel!

(Day 249)

Gay in the work force

2009-02-10T06:59:00.000-08:00

Recently, I had the pleasure to attend a talk by Mark Brastoff, a visitor from Indiana University career services. His talk, entitled "Straight jobs, Gay lives" dealt with what gay people should look for as they seek employment.

The start of the talk was refreshingly upfront about the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to finding a job that will suit an individual. Some individuals are completely out and will chafe at the idea of hiding their identity to any degree, while others don't want anyone in the workplace to know they are gay. Those two categories of individuals will be comfortable in two distinctly different sets of jobs.

Some little tidbits that struck me:
1) Resumé - should you put "PRIDE member", "LLL member", "GLBT support group", or other gay identifiers on your resumé? As with most things, this is job dependent. If the employer is gay-affirming, there may be no issue with these identifiers; in fact, this may make you stand out as someone who fits in with the company's pursuit of diversity in its workforce. However, if the employer is not gay-affirming, you may wish to shy away from explicitly labelling the organization. This does not mean that you shouldn't put it on your resumé. Rather, you will have to do some relabelling. For instance, I have participated on PRIDE panels for the human sexuality course at the university, being a panelist who explains what it's like to be a married gay male. I could either put down "PRIDE panelist for human sexuality class", or I could instead put down "Panelist for a student diversity group".

2) Interview - should I mention my orientation in the interview? Unless your orientation is a relevant subject, it should not be brought up. If you're interviewing to work in an LGBT office on a campus, then yes, it's relevant. But in almost all situations it is not relevant. Moreover, if for some reason you are asked, you can evade the question, stating how it hardly seems relevant to your qualifications for the job. Also, practice practice practice! If you put "student diversity group" on your resumé, be ready to explain your experiences and work with that group in non-orientation terms; otherwise you will likely have problems with such an on-the-spot question.

3) Questions about company diversity - how can I ascertain how gay-friendly the company is? The web, of course, is a compelling source of information about whether your company is gay-friendly. Does it have support groups (of any kind, and especially gay-related)? But as my husband and I found out, companies can have corporate policies or groups that may simply cover over a more anti-gay company atmosphere. During the interview or later with HR people in the company, feel free to ask questions without necessarily showing your hand; for instance, you can ask "Does your company value diversity? If so, how?". If you wish to show your hand somewhat, you can also ask about partner benefits (health, pension, 401-K), moving benefits, and so forth.

4) Legal protection - what state protections are on offer? No matter what the company policy may be, if you are in a state without legal protections, you may be subject to workplace discrimination and be left with no legal recourse. While you may not be able to choose a job among the few states offering protections, if you do have the possibility of protection it should factor into your decision. However, take note: many employers, even if they lose in state court, will simply appeal to the next level up (the federal courts), where there are no legal protections for gays against workplace discrimination. As such, the case will then be dismissed in favor of the employer, leaving you with no recourse.

Finally, he left us with a list of gay-oriented websites. While the sites vary somewhat, most of them are job listings that are gay-friendly, or looking specifically for gay employees. A partial list is provided below:
Human Rights Campaign - hrc.org
Gay Financial Network - gfn.com
Federal Globe - fedglob.org
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force - thetaskforce.org
Gay Work - gaywork.com
Pride at Work - prideatwork.org
Queer Resources Directory - qrd.org

I have visited each of these links and found a wealth of useful information.

(Day 241)

18,000 Californian Divorces?

2009-02-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

My husband alerted me to this video, produced by Courage Campaign. Its message is simple: don't forcibly break up these new families.

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

(Day 236)

"The trials of Ted Haggard"

2009-01-29T21:16:00.000-08:00

In case I hadn't mentioned it before, I'm a big fan of the Box Turtle Bulletin. If it's not on your RSS feed yet, please add it.

About one week ago, I read this post by Daniel Gonzalez, who had received and watched a copy of the documentary "The Trials of Ted Haggard", which was to air for the first time on January 29, 2009. Having forgotten this (and having no television of my own), I was pleasantly surprised when a friend called this evening asking if I wanted to watch it.

After watching the documentary, I was left with two overarching impressions:
1) Ted Haggard deserves better than what he has been given. He is a man who wishes the best for his family and who now struggles to provide a good life for them. The media continued to harp on him long after he was reduced to constantly moving around Arizona and being unable to secure a full-time job. Being barred from re-entering the state of Colorado where their home was located, the family finally had to take out a loan on their home simply to move from a hotel room into an apartment. As a grad student I have trouble with moving often, earning little money, and having uncertainty of the future. I cannot imagine having to deal with all of those things, but seeing no light at the end of the tunnel, and having to provide for a family at the same time. (Note: I don't mean to sound like I approve of what Ted did, nor sound biased in his favor. I simply empathize with this man who has fallen from the highest places in evangelicalism to now be little more than a shell of a man.)
-and-
2) The Christians in Ted Haggard's life are poor reflections of Jesus in the world. That statement took a long time to write, because it is more charitable than I feel. In fact, I felt outright anger at the injustices directed toward Ted Haggard. Ted had preached in New Life Church a gospel of forgiveness to the sinner, saying in a clip in the documentary that the church was meant to deal with the business of redeeming sinners in this world. Instead, New Life Church put the Haggard family into exile, requiring that he never step foot again into the very church he helped found. Even St. Paul speaks directly against the actions of New Life Church in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, which was a continuation of 1 Corinthians 5. Where there has been repentance, the sinner is to be brought back into the fold, and to do it so as to not cause him too much grief and sorrow. New Life Church has failed miserably at this; not only has Ted Haggard publicly confessed and repented of his sins, but he has suffered far more grief and sorrow than he deserves. These Christians will have much to answer for on the day when they are before Jesus.

My final observation is that throughout the video, I could not help but realize what a painful and unfair position he was placed into by fellow Christians (homosexuality is such a "big" sin that you will be instantly cast out, and he had been bred by society into shooting for the normal hetero life), and how my and my husband's own experiences somewhat parallel the experiences of Ted Haggard in regards to being exiled from our Christian communities. No matter how many times I have heard the justification, exile is an extreme form of un-love. It is a testament to Haggard's character that while I may have grown bitter to the evangelical movement and simply left it out of disgust, Haggard has stuck with it despite all the rejection it has heaped on him. May God have mercy on him and his family.

If you wish to catch a viewing of the show, a full listing of the times can be found here.

Westboro on the way to a Wichita wedding

2009-01-07T21:16:00.000-08:00

This past weekend, Jonas and I were invited to attend a wedding of two friends I know from my undergraduate institution. Being a ~10 hour drive, we figured we might as well have some fun along the way. Especially as we had never been to Kansas and were not planning on being in the neighborhood again anytime soon.

We spent a day in St. Louis, seeing the arch (although we could not visit the top, it being closed on New Year's Day). We took the light rail out to the Delmar/University Loop area. We walked around Wash U's campus, then through the city park and the (free!) art museum. And after a wonderful dinner at a local Thai restaurant, we saw ::drum roll:: MILK. Yes, that movie which is at the same time subject to both great acclaim and abysmal accessibility. Having been unable to see MILK at a theater nearer than 2.5 hours distant, we decided St. Louis provided the perfect opportunity for viewing it. MILK is a blog post in-and-of itself, so I will merely state here that it was worth the wait.

After a brief lunch in Kansas City, we hopped over to Topeka. Now, no offense to Kansas, but it might want to consider getting a new state capital. This low-lying city sprawls in all directions, a drab city where even the Capitol building is dismal due to renovation. Ask yourself what there is to see in the city, and you'll probably be at a loss.

Or almost. There is one thing that we associate with Topeka: the Phelps family and Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). You may have heard of them through GodHatesFags.com, or maybe through GodHatesAmerica.com, or maybe through the BBC documentary "The most hated family in America" (click here to see the first of eight parts on YouTube). So with the help of Google Maps, we headed to WBC to see the operation and to take a few photos.

The place announces itself from the road with a huge inviting sign, "godhatesamerica.com" stretched across the face of WBC. Some enterprising passerby must have felt a response was necessary, spray-painting "God hates the Phelps family" on their announcement board.

The Phelps not only say God hates America, but they're willing to display their America-hate on their flag poles. The tallest of their three flag poles (shown below) contained two flags. In their first insult to the U.S., the Canadian flag was placed above the American flag on the flag pole (note: don't take this as a sign that the Phelps venerate Canada. Rather, they also believe it is a doomed nation due to it's pro-gay policies). In their second insult, both flags were flow upside-down. A shorter flag pole contained the Kansas state flag, likewise upside-down.

Many houses in the neighborhood were up for sale. Why anyone wouldn't want to see this everyday is a mystery. Afterall, it's so uplifting, eh?

But the creme de la creme of the visit was yet to come. Walking around the block back to our car, we saw none other than Shirly Phelps-Roper herself, standing on a driveway talking to one her fellow parishoners. Her eyes covered with impenetrable black sunglasses, she gave us a glance as we strolled on by at a distance of about 20 feet. Reaching the car, we were like teenage girls who'd just had a brush with a famous actor. After all, we were floored that we had seen the infamous Shirley!

We hit the road again, arriving in Wichita which, in comparison to Topeka, is like manna from heaven: sure, you'll get tired of it after a while, but you'll eat anything after having nothing while wandering the wilderness. Staying at the Broadview Hotel (which was amazing, you must stay there if you're in town), we spent a lot of time with friends from my undergraduate school. The wedding (my first Catholic wedding) went splendidly, and after some more time with friends, we were ready to hit the road for home.

The only sad part is that going home meant we had to split up again, after being together for almost two full weeks. The bed has been quite lonely this week, and I've been so cold without another's heat that socks and an extra blanket became necessities. As you might imagine, I cannot wait to see Jonas again this weekend!

Holidays with the family

2009-01-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

For the holidays, Jonas and I drove back to Iowa to visit with my side of the family. It proved to be a nice time to relax, play with my nephew, bake goodies with Jonas, and eat eat eat! Of course, that's why my parents now have a Wii Fit.

A few things that stood out:
1) Jonas was completely accepted into the family. He got presents, just as we gave presents out. He was "uncle Jonas" to my nephew, just like I'm "uncle Topher". He was just another relative at the family party, even more accepted than my half-sister's new date, or my sister's fiance.
2) My nephew absolutely loved the Caterpillar toy he received, which Jonas had picked up. He would open a new present, immediately drop it, and return to the CAT vehicle. I think it was great that Jonas' thoughtfulness was rewarded.
3) Jonas and I visited with my high school friends for a breakfast, where they would ask him questions, and where some apologized for missing our June wedding, asking about all the details.

I am one blessed man, to not only have a husband who loves me and who I love in return, but also to have a family and friends who are supportive of our relationship.

(Day 207)

Coincidences from God

2008-12-17T18:24:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I'm struck by coincidences so perfectly orchestrated as to almost have originated on God's drawing board. No, I'm not saying that they definitely did. But I'd sure like to think so. This previous week delivered another one of these moments so filled with coincidence as to have been a punch-line to one of God's comedies.

As some of you know, I first came to grad school and joined an evanglical campus ministry. After deciding to date my husband, the pastors decided to show us the door, wishing us the best of luck in another place where the people might agree with and love us more.

Having found the Quakers, a year later I was asked to be the Quaker representative to the Religious Workers Association, or RWA (for an earlier post explaining the RWA, see September 11th, 2008). The RWA changes venue from month-to-month and this past week was held at the former campus ministry I attended, which we'll just call MoveOn.Church. Independently of having known the venue, I had signed up for food duty. So what started out as a possibility for awkward time at the former MoveOn.Church offices became a time when I had to show up an additional 30 minutes early and stay about 20 minutes later so I could deal with food set-up and tear-down.

That just the beginning. A few days before the meeting, an email went out announcing who the university speaker would be for the meeting (note: each meeting has a speaker who deals with how campus ministries can interface better with the campus). The speaker announced in that email was none other than the director of the LGBT student resources office. Strange choice, considering the ministry, eh?

But what takes the cake is that the Jewish woman who introduced the speaker had a prefacing comment. She said "I've been a member of the RWA for 11 years and this is only the second time we've had the LGBT office speak at our meeting. And what I realized is that the one other time we've had the LGBT speaker, it was right here at MoveOn.Church. Not that I'm implying that says anything about your organization, but I found that interesting." Interesting indeed.

Afterward, the one MoveOn.Church pastor in attendance (the other, who was even more opposed to the decision made in the Great Gay Purge of 2007 at MoveOn.Church, didn't even show up) came up to me and said "hey, wasn't that wild, considering the history?" I appreciated him broaching the subject, since I didn't feel it was my place to do so. Yes, it was wild. And to this pastor's credit, he then invited me to have lunch with him sometime, if I felt like I had more to say to him about what all happened.

So to recap: gay student kicked out of evangelical church signs up for food duty at former church where an LGBT director challenges campus churches to help their LGBT students.

God, I love your sense of humor.

(Day 184)

6 Month-a-versary

2008-12-16T20:36:00.000-08:00

My husband's brother, Joe, graduated from Texas A&M this weekend. Being the grand brother that he is, my husband flew down to spend time with Joe and the rest of his side of the family.

The thing that wasn't so grand about it was that we were going to spend our first weekend apart since we were married. And all this on our six month anniversary. It was almost more than we could bear!

Turns out that it was more than my husband could bear. On Sunday I had lunch with my friend KQ, met her cousin who's visiting for the next couple weeks, and ate her delicious cooking. She told me about this dinner we'd have with our friends Bryce and Phil that evening. Though short on details, I was in!

Heading out after lunch, I received a phone call shortly thereafter from Bryce asking to go to a downtown coffee shop. Now, I should at this point mention that Bryce frequents one coffee shop and only one coffee shop ... Paradiso. Not going to Paradiso? Should've raised alarm bells, but didn't.

At the coffee shop, Phil drops by and convinces us to go to Aroma, the coffee shop next door. Why? "Better coffee." Riiiiiight.

And in short order, we're all chatting away, watching SNL skits on computers, doing new car shopping, when I feel a tap on my shoulder. I turn around and there is none other than my husband Jonas, stargazer lillies in hand and a huge smile on his face. Whaaaaat?!

Turns out they'd all pulled the wool over my eyes. Jonas hopped on a direct flight back, rather than taking the three-flight option that I had been told he'd take. KQ, Bryce, and Phil all were told to keep me away from work (how'd they know I'd be doing work on my "day off"? ;-) ).

But it didn't matter: we were together on our six month anniversary! And all thanks to a wonderful husband and the support of gloriously deceitful friends!

(Day 183)

Consorting with the enemy

2008-11-06T20:22:00.000-08:00

At the university I attend, the conservative-leaning Christian groups put on a once-a-semester gathering called "All-Campus Worship". Back in my evangelical days, I would attend to worship with the crowd and band, listen to the speaker, and pray as a group about whatever was the topic of the evening. Tonight was the latest All-Campus Worship (ACW), and was the first I had planned to miss.

But the best laid plans ... turns out my great friend KQ, with whom I have attended each ACW, asked if I wanted to go with her, and I consented. The event was, for me, a mixed bag. Here are some of the thoughts I had.

I have been seething over the gay-related ballot measures the past two days, which passed in no small measure due to the evangelical vote. So attending ACW was somewhat like walking into the base of the enemy. I never thought that someday I would consider Christians "the enemy", but that's what crosses my mind when I think about them. (Setting aside the fact that I still consider myself Christian and know there are many out there who love the gays.) In this way, evangelicals are doing a reverse evangelism on me ... I wonder how they would respond if they knew they were doing the opposite of the Great Commission laid out by Jesus.

I miss worship music. Quakers love their silence and I can love it too. But there is something to the idea of corporate action in worship, with voices raised together, experiencing the emotion -- joys and sorrows -- that can be elicited by music. The worship music brought into communion with God and those around me -- even though I had considered them "the enemy" -- and I think that is a healing balm. This was further emphasized by singing the refrain from "It is well". It reminded me of the lyrics they did not speak:
When peace like a river attendeth my way
When sorrows like sea billows roll
What ever my lot you have taught me to say
It is well, it is well with my soul
And so I said, and tried to feel, tonight like it was well with my soul. I hope this becomes more of a reality as the week progresses.

The speaker tonight spoke on (lo and behold!) injustice. Yes, injustice. He mentioned that we often feel there is much injustice done to us, but he did not want to talk about being cut off in traffic, or being behind someone who has too many items in the 10-items-or-fewer lane at the supermarket. No, he put forward the following definition of injustice:
"Injustice is the abuse of power by one person who is powerful over another person who is weak, in a way so as to deprive them of an aspect of their life, their liberty, or to enjoy their love and their labor."
At which point, the irony being so forward in my mind, I leaned over to my friend KQ and said, "so that must mean Prop 8 is an injustice". The depressing thing is that those in attendance probably agreed with every word the man said tonight and yet would walk into a voting booth and say "Yes on 8" if it were put before them here in the midwest.

(Day 145)

On props and bans

2008-11-05T20:06:00.000-08:00

I feel defeated today. In a way this is an accurate feeling.

The presidential cycle has now gone on for approximately 2 years, culminating in the historic election last night. Both McCain's concession speech and Obama's victory speech were thoughtful and welcome after a long campaign. Many around me were euphoric last evening.

I was not. I was constantly checking the ballot measures on gay-related issues. The first ballot measure to be called was that adoption by any non-heterosexually-married people is no longer possible in Arkansas (made possible by 57% of voters). I'm sure those orphaned children thank you, Arkansas; way to look out for the children.

Next to be called was the Florida constitution ban on gay marriage and any rights that approximate marriage for gays. I thought we'd be fine on this one; after all, a 60% supermajority was necessary. But Floridians are supermajor excited about banning gay marriage it seems ... the ban passed with 62.1% of the vote. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that the large elderly population, coupled with northern counties of Southern-style values voters, could muster their strength. Nice touch to make sure that civil unions are also constitutionally banned ... why stop at gay marriage?

Next came Arizona. At BoxTurtleBulletin.com, I was kept apprised of the poor showing for gay marriage. Jonas and I had put our financial donations in this basket, having thought it would do the most good (after all, we thought Florida was safe). While the ban narrowly failed at the ballot two years ago, this time around it passed with 56% of the vote. I suppose this goes to show that if the people vote and give the "wrong" answer the first time, try try again.

The most crushing defeat, though, was saved for this morning, when I awoke to see the results from California. To my distress I saw that while the numbers had tightened, the final tally would likely by 52% in favor of Proposition 8, which removes the right to gay marriage in California. While there are still ~3 million ballots yet to be counted, it is unlikely that they will completely remove the 500,000 vote advantage that the Yes on 8 people achieved. Part of the Californian public sure knows how to consume advertisements based on emotional bias, dirty tactics, and misinformation. Not to mention overlook blackmail and computer crimes.

I think I'll save my euphoria for another day.

(Day 144)

Texas, for a wedding, for a reception

2008-10-22T20:32:00.000-07:00

Continuing the list of catch-up topics, here is the second:

Having learned from the previous weekend’s bus disaster, I rented a car and drove to my husband’s apartment on Friday afternoon (October 10th). After a short detour to get my new drivers license, we flew down to San Antonio, TX.

Saturday morning we drove about 30 minutes to arrive at the wedding location. The couple was Laura (Jonas’ cousin) and Kendall. Being there was a bit awkward at first (are we dressed properly? will people know who I am? are they going to be ok with Jonas’ husband being there, or upset? what about all the people I won’t know?). But both before and after the wedding things worked out, with my meeting some new family (they’d been told I’d be there) and talking with those I’d met on a previous trip to Texas. Meeting his most-supportive (but still unsupportive) brother Joseph provided many a laugh. Jonas’ parents showed up just as the wedding was about to start, but I met them afterward, with hugs (they’re a hugging family) and talk about how our trip had gone. His aunt Mag introduced us to another pastor, a local college pastor, who had heard all about us and wanted to know us better.

It was interesting to be at a “programmed” wedding, i.e. a wedding where a sermon/homily were given (both by the bride’s family pastor (aunt Mag) and the groom’s family pastor), and where prayers are said, and where the Lord’s Prayer was recited. While this is a subject for another time, both my husband and I mentioned that the previous week’s memorial service and this week’s wedding left us wondering about the Apostle’s Creed and Lord’s Prayer, whether we believed it all nowadays, whether we should be reciting it, etc. Like I said, a whole other post topic.

Afterward we went to the “Crusader’s Hall” (no joke) for the reception. I started remembering names of everyone, and I was in high demand from a lot of the family that wanted to hear what I was studying, how things were going, what I thought of Texas, etc. Leaving the reception, the family was meeting up at the grandparents' place in Austin, TX, so Jonas, Joseph and I drove in a our rental car together. While I contributed about zero to the conversation (I was a little tired of family time at that point), it was interesting hearing Joseph describe his current struggles with deciding on a seminary, whether he should do it, and various religious issues that I used to deal with, but no longer do. It could have made me feel nostalgic, but instead I simply felt a bit wearied and sad for the guy.

Jonas and I, after checking into the hotel, showed up at the assisted-care facility in Austin. I was so glad for them to have found it, as it’s nice, and located quite close to aunt Mag and uncle Charles’ house (maybe a 5 minute drive). What we weren’t so excited about was the appearance of Jonas' older brother. Upon showing up, it always seems that the first five minutes is some sugar-coated version of the man specifically designed to make you feel welcome and comfortable, even if there’s no reason to do so. Luckily for us (and for him?), his sugar-coated attitude begins to drop off and behind the façade a truer version of the man shines through. Someday I will enjoy having a nice discussion with him, perhaps on the Bible, Creationism, and other “pressing matters” of the faith. But that day was not this weekend. Our real reason for seeing him was Jonas’ desire to meet Sam and Rebecca’s new daughter, Anna. While an earful at times, she was quite nice, and with such a head of hair!

We had a quite enjoyable dinner at a local Tex-Mex place (note: my iPhone came in quite handy for searching and finding a place, as the other plan of action was to drive around town until we found something suitable). Jonas occupied the older brother corner of the table, while I occupied the parents’ corner. Jonas got to talk to everyone about his work, having ridden construction equipment recently. It was also fun to see him give a gift of cute baby clothes to Anna as well.

The next morning we went to Aunt Mag’s ELCA Lutheran church service. It was (once again) weird being in a programmed meeting, but I enjoyed singing again. We also enjoyed seeing another gay couple in the audience. Sure, our Quaker meeting has lots of lesbians, but no couples, and there are no other gay couples in our meeting either. His aunt even offered up a prayer/blessing for our marriage and the afternoon reception during the prayer time of the service. It was definitely an “open and affirming community.”

The reception at Mag and Charles’ house was a veritable feast, and so comfortable too! The beef brisket (8 hours on heat, so juicy and tender) and chicken breast with homemade bbq sauce were delectable. We had the opportunity to sit at the same table as the grandparents, the mother of the bride, and then the couple (Laura and Kendall).

Midway through the meal, we were informed by the younger nieces that there would be a performance after the meal in the living room. The performance was amazingly cute, with the three girls each playing pieces on the electronic keyboard, dancing, and then doing a happy birthday song for their mother. Then Jonas’ mother piped up and said “Tuesday is Topher’s birthday. Let’s sing for him!”, which they proceeded to do. It was so embarrassing, but quite nice to be included as well.

The things that stand out about the reception are the following:
1) One of Jonas’ relatives said “welcome to the family!” I forget who it was, when it was exactly said, but it was great to hear it. Jonas has heard it a lot from my family around our wedding time, so it was nice to hear it reciprocated from at least one member of the extended family.
2) Jonas’ parents are definitely the outliers in that side of the family. I began to pity them, seeing how they were unable to truly enjoy themselves at the event; after all, it was devoted to celebrating our marriage, something of which they disapprove. But when they were flipping through and being shown the photos from the wedding and the honeymoon, they just didn’t smile like the rest of the family did. The joy just wasn’t there.
3) The reception was infinitely easier than the one we had directly after our wedding. We didn’t have to send out invitations, buy food, cook food, rent a space, any of that. It was all graciously taken care of by Jonas’ aunt Mag and her husband Charles. My hat is off to them for their incredible hosting.

Finally, at the event I heard many times people remark that they had not met together for at least ten years, if not more. Upon hearing this, I thought of James Dobson. Why, you ask? Because often evangelicals (and Dobson is the foremost of this breed) make the case that gay marriage will weaken marriages and tear families apart. But that’s not what we saw this weekend. Instead, we saw a family coming together after a decade of not having done so, and the occasion that made it happen was the celebration of a gay marriage. Quite unexpected, eh Dobson?

(Day 122)

Travel home for my grandmother's memorial service

2008-10-21T20:01:00.000-07:00

(This is the first item in my catch-up list. More will be forthcoming.)

My grandmother’s memorial service was held in northeast Iowa the weekend of October 4th to 5th. I, being without a car, had to find a way to Jonas’s place in Peoria. This turned out to be easy in theory, difficult in practice, with the answer being the bus. I'll spare you the details here, but you can see the details below.*

Arriving late at my husband's town, Jonas had made a wonderful dinner. We had our first homemade guacamole, which was phenomenal (even when we made it a second time recently, it just didn’t compare), as well as burritos with lots of wonderful fresh ingredients. Then we drove to stay overnight at my parents’ place. My dad was already asleep, so we just got there and promptly crashed for the night.

The next day we drove to northeast Iowa, arriving at ~9:30am, where we greeted my grandfather at the door. He seemed quite distraught, with tears brimming in his eyes. After quickly changing, we then walked 1 block to the Lutheran church where the memorial would be held.

There was a pre-service prayer for the family and Jonas, not knowing whether to come in, stayed out with Sarah soon joining him (because Xander was being pretty talkative). I was later told that they were approached by some distant relative who introduced herself and asked if Jonas was one of the grandchildren. He said no, he was Topher’ partner. To which she immediately turned to my sister, said “Topher, is that one of Susan’s daughters?” My sister, momentarily flabbergasted, glanced at Jonas and then back at the woman, saying, no, Topher is my brother. The woman, still not glancing at Jonas, patted Xander on the head, said what a cute boy he was, and then promptly walked away.

The memorial service went well. There were three speakers: my mom’s cousin, me, and my mom (in that order). I had forgotten the print-out of my speech at home (stupid me!), but I had uploaded an earlier version to gmail, so I accessed that with my phone and I used that instead. It wasn’t until the closing song that I started crying … sobbing might be closer to the truth. It’s weird how I can hold it together for a long time and then it comes out strong and quick.

The other weirdness of the weekend (beyond Jonas’s encounter with some distant relative) was when my mom and I took my sister’s son Alexander to the park just another block beyond the church. A strange guy in his mid-50s wearing a hard hat came up and started chatting. He then asked if we were married; my mom, somewhat taken aback, said no, she was my mother. After she wandered away with Xander, the conversation went like this:
Stranger: Is that your wife? (pointing to woman on nearby park bench)
Me: No.
Stranger: Where is your wife?
Me: I don’t have a wife.
Stranger: But you have a wedding ring?
Me: (spooked out, because my hands are at that point in my pockets) I don’t have a wife.
Stranger: So it’s like a promise ring or something?
Me: (somewhat annoyed at this point) No, it’s a wedding band.
Stranger: You’re engaged?
Me: (finally at my wit’s end) No, I’m married to a man.

At that point the man, probably subconsciously, continues staring off in the distance as he had, but shuffles uncomfortably over to a position about 10 feet further away from me. At least it gave me a minute until the shock wore off and he decided to bug me some more.

My mom's side of the family hadn’t been together for a while, so after returning from the park we all sat down together and chatted. I learned that my grandmother was amazing at auctions, barely giving a signal, but enough of one that the auctioneer could tell. I also heard about some of the dastardly deeds done by my relatives when they were teens in small-town Iowa.

The ride up had been me, my father, and Jonas, and on the way back it was the three of us plus my sister's son Xander. It was a good time, with my dad getting some time with us (usually at home, we only get to have a few tens of minutes with just the three of us). Once back, we stopped to return Xander to my sister, and then we went to have dinner. We had some nice beers, some excellent food, and some interesting conversation. My dad is quite good at coming up with random topics to talk about. Plus, he likes my husband a lot.

The next day we stayed around for lunch (brats and sauerkraut), then drove back home. Unfortunately, I had to prepare for an upcoming conference and began my two-week long cycle of minimal sleep.

(Day 121)

* I had never ridden on this busline, arriving about 30 minutes ahead of departure. Or supposed departure, as the announcement soon came out that the bus had broken down east of town and would be running about 1 hour behind schedule. Once the bus did arrive, I discovered that any luggage to be stored underneath would have to have a special tag on it, so I rushed inside to get the proper tag; this moved me from in the first third of the line to the second-to-last person. This matters because once on the bus we discover that it’d been overbooked … by 5 people! So for the next 60 minutes, I and 4 other people have to stand in the aisle while we ride from Champaign to Peoria. As soon as others got off the bus, I was able to sit, but I was lucky, as we picked up new people, and by the time we left Bloomington we had 11 people overbooked! I have no idea how this busline can do this and stay in business.

Catch-up

2008-10-20T19:38:00.000-07:00

If you've been waiting for an update, I'm sorry it's been a long time in coming. The past month (and yes, it's been that long since I've posted) has been filled with the following:
1. travel home for my grandmother's funeral
2. travel to Texas for a wedding and for a reception in honor of me and my husband
3. my birthday, complete with a song in honor of me and my husband
4. a scientific conference, where I had my first presentation
5. Quaker discussions on equality and on integrity
6. Gay panels (in conjunction with PRIDE) for university human sexuality courses

This many items in quick succession has left me quite tired. However, I'm excited to bring up most of these over the coming week, as I write them out for my remembrance and for your enjoyment.

(Day 128)

On donations

2008-09-22T19:06:00.000-07:00

Today I decided to cancel my financial support for my undergraduate evangelical church.

This has been a decision that I have considered making for the previous year. On the one hand, this church was a wonderful source of inspiration and spiritual growth for me while at college. If it weren't for that church, I would be a different person upon arriving at grad school, and in all likelihood would not have joined the church where I met my husband. The church has never been malevolent (in my opinion), not been hateful in their speech.

On the other hand, I have grown to disagree with many of the things the church the church advocates. We disagree on Biblical inerrancy, on the sinfulness of homosexuality, on gender roles, on creationism, and on a host of other issues. The last time I spoke with one of the pastors on the phone, I vividly remember that part of his answer to how the church was ministering to homosexuals was through the support/establishment of an ex-gay ministry. Anyone who knows the details of my husband's ex-gay experiences knows that this enough would be enough for me to turn away from supporting this church.

But it was not until today that I had the conviction that the negatives outweighed the benefits of my support for that body of Christians. I cannot explain how I reached the conviction, only that as I read through my email which listed another "support payment confirmation", I felt the right thing was to immediately stop any future payments.

I will now reroute that financial backing to the local Quaker meeting, which has been so helpful and supportive of me and Jonas through our progress.

As a donation-related side note, three ballot initiatives are up this fall for passing or failing anti-gay marriage ammendments. One is in Florida, one in California, and one in Arizona. Arizona's pro-gay marriage effort is suffering in financial backing, so I would encourage all of you to visit Vote No on Prop 102 and donate. My husband and I did so and found it easy to do (note: previously I mistakenly wrote Prop 8, which is the California proposition on banning gay marriage).

(Day 100)

Sunday nights ...

2008-09-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

... are always so lonely. But this week that changed, as my husband stayed in town an extra day so as to meet with his former doctoral advisor on Monday afternoon. However, that has just pushed back the inevitable loneliness to Monday night.

As I sat down at my desk in the apartment after just arriving home, my eyes started to tear up just from the sheer quiet and emptiness. I suppose it stems from the juxtaposition of such a happy, cuddle-riffic weekend versus the dreary, lonely weekdays.

I really cannot wait until grad school is over and I live with him again.

(Day 100)

"Maintain a relationship"

2008-09-14T22:26:00.000-07:00

Religion and homosexuality sometimes seem like oil and water: it's just hard get them to mix. Not anymore, mind you, for me or my husband. Rather, it's hard for them to mix in the minds of my husband's family.

My husband's parents did not attend our wedding. Nor did two of his three brothers. This is entirely due to their religious beliefs that we were making a grievous mistake. Unfortunately, we also had many other absences from his side of the family, due to another wedding on the same day. Because of this, we decided to have a reception in October in Texas for everyone after yet another wedding on that side of the family.

As all family is invited, it has been surprising, yet somewhat confusing, to see who has decided to attend. The surprises are for my husband, as his parents and a second brother have decided to attend. According to his mom, this is because she wants to "build" and "maintain a relationship with [Topher]." His Southern Baptist pastor brother has also decided to attend (with caveats) so that he can "maintain a relationship" with "you [Jonas] and Topher."

Perhaps you picked up on it, but the phrase "maintain a relationship" has been thrown around a lot, not only in regards to the reception, but also over the past year when my husband and I decided to marry. As I've learned, there is much to this phrase.

For one, it implies that attending or not attending an event influences whether a relationship will or will not be maintained. I agree with this. When I attend important events in my friends' lives (weddings, birthdays, etc.), I feel a deeper part of their lives, and I believe they also feel a deeper connection to me. Our wedding was just such an occasion, where some friends I had worried would not come decided to attend, and I feel a deeper connection to them now. On the other hand, I had friends who I had hoped would attend, but instead cited religious reasons for not attending. This pained me and lessened (though did not dissolve) the bonds of friendship.

But the phrase "maintain a relationship", when used as it has by my husbands' family, is pushed beyond the implication listed above. It is used in that a relationship can consist entirely of attendance at an event. I take exception to this meaning. The thought apparent during discussions is that by coming to the reception, they will have a relationship simply through their attendance. It is not just their starting point, but the end, as if a relationship is bought by 2 hours at a luncheon. They see their attendance as covering over a multitude of disagreements about marriage and the Bible and God and more.

The saddest part has been watching people who have a strong familial love attempt to barter into their son's/brother's life, rather than spending time to pay out the real love that will make the real difference.* The transparency of it all makes me want to push back and say to his parents and brother "No, if that is your motivation, stay away. Do not come simply to buy a relationship from me. Our reception is a celebration of us and our marriage, not an opportunity for you to salve your consciences."

[*Note: in a way, this is too harsh. His parents, in particular, have done almost everything I could imagine to display real and caring love, while considering their deepseated religious convictions.]

But then, can I really turn down their offer, however small? Or should I take a hint from those who wish to evangelize me into their worldview, instead accepting their invitation and hope that it is they who are proselytized into our world?

Weekend ends

2008-09-14T17:38:00.000-07:00

The best part of each week nowadays is Friday evening, when he arrives. The worst part of every week is Sunday evening. He leaves.

Growing up, I usually had a sinking feeling in my stomach starting at about dinnertime on Sunday evenings. It would grow as the evening wore on, when I found myself less and less able to have fun, instead finding myself in a deepening melancholy as I realized that my weekend joy was about to end. Or perhaps rather than sensing an end of joy, I instead was focused on the beginning of school, with its associated homework, busyness, and other stresses.

Shifting forward ten years, I have found that all my weekends now end in a similar fashion. My heart begins to sink as Sunday afternoons wear on, ending in the inevitable goodbye as I hug my hubby one last time and wave as he drives the car down the parking lot in the direction of the interstate. I then spend the rest of the evening in a depressive state, thinking about the workweek I have to endure before the next Friday evening comes.

At this point, I only wish that my heart would stop becoming so heavy at the end of every weekend. I have to see him leave every weekend for the next year and a half; that's the reality. I just wish my chest didn't know that reality, so that I could fool myself into moving with a happy heart into each week.

Maybe next weekend's end ...

(Day 92)

Pastors from the past

2008-09-11T19:51:00.000-07:00

As some of you know, I have been attending the local Urbana-Champaign Quaker meeting for a period of approximately 2 years. This is not because I was raised Quaker (indeed, few of the attendees are "birthright Quakers"). Rather, the start of my attendance there corresponds with the timing of my growing exclusion from my previous church in town, which was an evangelical campus church.

The process, which I will not detail here, was painful. Indeed, in spite of my reluctance to hold grudges or ill will to most anyone, I have found myself struggling for the past two years to have something approximating neutral feelings towards some of the pastoral staff of the evangelical church.

Recently, I was asked to represent the Quakers at the meeting of the Religious Workers Association (RWA). Though our Meeting is relatively young, we still have few college students, so I was considered a representative who could go and communicate well with others who minister on the campus. However, immediately after signing up, I was tangibly afraid of the first meeting. You see, I would see them. I had not seen either of the two pastors for at least a year. And here I would in all likelihood see both of them. Last night I fell asleep thinking about how I would react to them. Would it be kind? Genial? Confrontational?

Today I found out, and I'm pleased to say it went well. The pastor I liked best of the two showed up during the social time. His kind attitude made it almost easy for me to return kindness, and we talked for about 5 minutes about our summers, his broken arm, national parks, and such before we all had to sit down. Immediately after sitting down, I saw that the other pastor (for whom my feelings are much less inclined) had arrived. At the end of the meeting, before "hurrying" out the door, he said something along the lines of "hey, how's it going?". It was awkward. It was forced. It was not filled with happiness. Perhaps our feelings toward one another are mirror images. I say "hurrying" out the door, because after his abrupt greeting, I later walked out the front door to find him waiting for another person, rather than having disappeared for some must-attend meeting.

As I walked away, I could not help but wonder what was going through their minds. Was it about how liberal, tolerant, and "non-Biblical" the Quakers were? Was it prayers for my coming back to Christ from ungodliness? Or was it how I was a plague that was purged from one church's leadership structure, only to pop up in another church's? In the end, I left feeling better about attending the events in the future. If anything, future RWA meetings will be much more awkward for them than they will be for me.

(Day 89)

Grandparents and the wedding

2008-09-01T21:06:00.000-07:00

I cannot help but mention one other aspect of the trip to visit my grandparents: the photo viewing.

You see, my grandparents are unable to travel far from home these days and were thus unable to attend our wedding. Through my mother's prodding, I remembered to bring our laptops with the digital photos of the wedding (set-up, bachelors' party, family dinner, ceremony, and reception!) and honeymoon (Seattle and Glacier National Park).

Hooking it up to to the television, my husband and I narrated the events for my grandparents. Two observations:
1) My grandfather was extremely quiet. I don't think he's used to the idea of me being married ... to a guy. He's never much talked about it, even when given the opportunity of seeing so many photos related to the event.
2) I think this is all-the-more complicated by what my husband kept pointing out as my "favorite grandchild" status with my grandfather. My sisters are great, but he's always taken somewhat of a liking to me, which has now become complicated with my marriage. How can his favorite grandchild, the one who was so "perfect", be gay? And why does he feel so uncomfortable with the idea of my gay feelings, considering his agnostic/atheistic religious convictions? Not that he has mentioned these points, but I can feel them running under the surface. If he weren't such a German at heart, he might even talk about them every once in a while ...

The bright spot was that my grandmother was interested, but could not keep awake the entire time. Such is her state of tiredness. But it was nice to have a little audience participation, even if it was interrupted by some light sleeping from time to time.

Weekend visit to grandparents in Iowa

2008-09-01T19:43:00.000-07:00

I returned from my honeymoon three weeks ago with many voicemail messages. Some were funny and exciting, others ho-hum, but one message in particular was unexpected and uninvited news.

My grandmother (mother's side) had one of her legs amputated above the knee a little over a year ago, as there was a cancerous spot which was getting too close to the bone for doctors' comfort. The hope was to remove the cancer before it had a chance to spread elsewhere. It turns out that it was a hoped-for outcome that has not materialized. Medical tests show that the cancer spread before the amputation and has lodged in her lung, where it cannot be eradicated, and from where it will probably overtake her last working lung (and thus her) by the year's end.

Having heard this news, I've made it a point to try to visit my grandparents as much as possible over the next few months. This is somewhat difficult because 1) I have no car, having given it to my husband and 2) it is a 6+ hour trip one direction from my university location. Labor Day provided the perfect opportunity for my husband to ride with me into Iowa, visit my parents' house briefly, and then head up to my grandparents' house.

And so we did. Many family members (who I had last seen at the wedding) were in town and stopped by my parents' house on Saturday night, where we discussed jobs (ugh), school (ugh), and how quickly the kids were growing up (alas!, this must mean I really am getting older). The next day my husband, my sister and I jumped in the car to make the last 2.5 hour leg up to my grandparents'.

I will say it was odd and uncomfortable, yet reassuringly right to be there with them. As my mom showed me various tasks that still could be done to help out, I kept glancing at my grandmother, sitting fairly listless on a recliner in the living room. She has now been put on an oxygen line, as she was having trouble breathing with only one functional lung. She could not eat except for the softest food items, as her brief radiation treatments had burned parts of her esophagus. Later that night she broke down in tears when she could not swallow her pills due to the throat pains.

It was a sobering reminder of what it can be to grow old, to gradually have your body shut down on you, to be victorious to merely walk across the room and to stay awake for but a few hours of each day. I left their house, less than 24 hours after my arrival in order to get back to school, with a renewed appreciation for the days of my youth, where life can be smiles, full of walks around the neighborhood at sunset and cuddles at night. I know -- tangibly and terribly know -- that it will not last forever.

He's a comin'

2008-08-22T15:08:00.001-07:00

Today is the first day to see my husband since Monday morning. Delayed by an hour or two by forces outside of his control (read: work), he'll return to swoop me up and deliver me to some nice dinner locale, where we'll discuss the details of our week that we forgot to mention on the phone, and make furtive glances at each other over our iced tea/coke/water.

Or so I hope :-)

(Day 69 ... heh heh)

Move in ... to two places

2008-08-17T18:35:00.000-07:00

Sigh.

This weekend marks the beginning of one couple in two apartments. After crashing in various people's houses over the interim period since our honeymoon return (thank you all, particularly The Outpost and Jimmy!), I was finally able to move in to my short-term lease.

Short-term, you say? Yes, as I was one of those fools who decided to move into a newly constructed building, which just happens to have the problem of now still being under construction. While I wait for it to finish in August, I am making do at an apartment complex that targets students.

And not any type of student. These are the students who (on average) are slim, tanned, perfect clothes, and love hanging around the on-site pool. To say the least, I don't exactly feel like I'd want to stay here on a permanent basis.

Anyway, after receiving move-in help from some other apartment dwellers, my husband and I left town for his apartment about 2 hours away. It looks great with his/our stuff, it looks great with him in it, and we spent a great night walking the neighborhood, dining at a local campus eatery, and watching our latest Netflix movie. I just wish I could stay there with him.

But instead, this Sunday afternoon, we drove back to my place, so we could spend a night cuddling one last time before parting ways. Such good cuddles. I think I'll be missing them.

Sigh.

(Day 64)

What a day for a Sunday stroll

2008-08-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

As you may have guessed, I've continued putting in many hours of work since our honeymoon. This is wholly due to my advisor, who desires some more data before a funding review later this August. I say "wholly" because 1) after a vacation like that, who would immediately dive into work? and 2) these are the last few days before my husband heads out of the city, only to return on his weekend visits.

So it was with great pleasure that I cast off the reigns of work on Sunday evening and wholeheartedly agreed to (perhaps even pushed for) a walk around our neighborhood. Unfortunately, we were "greeted" by some "nice" locals, who decided to welcome us with their disdain. While we've experienced such jeers before, we've never had the distinct pleasure of it happening twice in one walk.

Jeer no. 1 was the most in-your-face, in that a late 20's man on a bike turned around after passing us to loudly state "hey, keep that shit behind closed doors, you fucking faggots." What perhaps surprised me the most was that we were not holding hands; rather, our only physical affection at that time happened to be me rubbing my husbands back with my fingertips, and not in an overly cuddly manner.

Jeer no. 2 was from a group of men in a car about half a block behind us, whence we heard "(muffled loud voices) ... Sodom ... (muffled loud voices) ... Sodom ... (more muffled)". Who knows what they were saying. All I could tell them is that their message did not get through clearly.

At this point, I think it's ridiculous when this happens. Am I supposed to shy away from what I'm doing because of some hostile stranger who is there one moment and gone the next? Not likely. Which is how it played out today. We kept walking, we kept talking, and we kept holding hands.

(Day 57)

Commence: Honeymoon!

2008-07-23T09:21:00.000-07:00

Just so y'all aren't waiting for blog updates, my husband and I are leaving on our honeymoon. Today. In about 5 hours.

Woo hoo!

(Day 39)

Home sick

2008-07-09T12:49:00.000-07:00

Apparently "in sickness and in health" goes both ways. I've come down with something strangely similar to what my husband had about two weeks ago. Having felt bad at the end of work yesterday, it became a full-blown fever overnight and kept me from work today.

This was unfortunate for two reasons:
1) I was really looking forward to walking into school with my husband. We used to do it all the time, but recently he's been staying at the local library to finish his dissertation.
2) I want to be all celebratory for my husband because he defends his thesis tomorrow! This is especially so, beause I would love to take his mind off of the inevitable fear that arises when having to defend years of research work before a committee.

Luckily, this seems not to have phased my husband. He took it in stride, tucking me in before leaving, bringing my phone to me so I could call my undergrad, and getting me a bit of water to wash down the sudafed. Hopefully I'll be over this in a jiffy ... and why not with such royal treatment?

(Day 24)

Fourth of July

2008-07-05T07:07:00.000-07:00

For the Fourth of July, my husband had a smashing plan for some festivities. As he will soon be moving to a city ~2 hours from here, he had hoped for our friends at home to see his new apartment location. Lo and behold, the Fourth provided just such an opportunity.

The lease for the new apartment started on July 1st and has a stunning view of the city and just so happens to overlook the river area where the fireworks were to be set off. So we and 6 friends hopped into cars and drove to the new city, stopping to eat at a local restaurant, and then lugging cases of beer and treats up three flights of stairs until we stepped into the apartment.

He has also worried (understandably so) that he will be lonely in a new place, somewhat distant from me and with no previous connections in the city. Some of this fear was allayed when a neighbor came over and invited us all to come to their party in a lower apartment. He was able to meet some of the people in the building and even people who work for the same company.

(Day 20)

2 week anniversary!

2008-06-29T19:56:00.000-07:00

Today was our two-week-a-versary!

Every once in a while I come home, but as I walk through the door it hits me that I live in this apartment, rather than being a wanderer who simply stays until bedtime. The sequence of feelings is something akin to:
1) realize that I'm not just visiting my husband's apartment, but our apartment
2) get a tightness in the chest from feeling trapped and unable to escape to my former house
3) relax and realize that in the previous two weeks I haven't had any reason to need escape
4) collapse into my husband's arms in joy

My only hope is that I can cut out step 2 in this process, the sooner the better!

(Day 14)

Final wedding tasks

2008-06-22T19:38:00.000-07:00

As we all know, there is a lot of front-end planning associated with a wedding. You have the wedding location, the reception location, the invitations, the catering, the decorations ... the list goes on and on. The wedding day comes and you find out all the planning was (hopefully) worth it; that you'll be thankful when it's all over; and that you'll be happy that you can return to normal life in short order.

Of course, that's not what really happens. The wedding day finishes a lot of the associated tasks, but not all. There are the normal wrap-up tasks, such as writing thank-yous and returning duplicate gifts*. But there are things that we normally don't think of. We had extras alcohol to return; doing so gave us $524 back (woo hoo!) but also took about 45 minutes to load into the car and then unload at the store. We had some broken gifts (the dark side of shipping gifts via mail) to exchange. Having done the wedding mostly on our own, we had numerous items to donate to Goodwill, rather than simply throwing away.

And, having had a Quaker marriage ceremony, we had the fun -- yet time-consuming -- task of purchasing a frame for our marriage certificate. It is now hung on our wall, looking gorgeous. I can tell already that I will have many moments where I glance over the signatures contained therein, remembering the kind words said by everyone that day.

* Note on duplicate gifts: Gift registries are phenomenal, except for when the store fails to take an item off of the list. As such, we received various duplicates, where the first person failed to have the item removed from the list. If only there were a better method to make sure this does not occur...

(Day 7)

One week anniversary!

2008-06-22T16:22:00.001-07:00

And my husband is dumbfounded that I haven't grown tired of him yet.

All smiles here :-)

(Day 7)

In sickness and in health

2008-06-18T20:32:00.000-07:00

My husband has been sick for the last few days.

In fact, it's worse than that. He began having symptoms of sickness at our Bachelors' Party (yes, plural on the bachelors), becoming more and more sick as the days have progressed. His stuffed sinuses and continual need to carry around a box of kleenex have been somewhat of a downer on the daylong honeymoon, rearrangement of the apartment, and other activities.

What it has done, however, is provide me a real example of what "in sickness or in health" means as a marriage vow. I readily admit that our marriage vows to each other did not include this line, but it is so oft repeated in American culture that it is ingrained into my thoughts of marriage.

It's messy to help someone when they are sick. It's difficult to put aside your plans so as to help buy the Sudafed and Robitussin. It's inconvenient to cut short your evening to instead tuck your mate into bed early. But it is love, and it is selfless, and it is the best for us, even if not the best for me.

I love this man. Whether in sickness, or in health, I love this man.

(Day 4)

About the ring

2008-06-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

I am not used to jewelry of any sort. And so it has been a strange sensation to wear a ring. Pictured here, it is a handsome piece of titanium, comfortable, loose but not such that it will fall off.

My husband and I have the same ring -- if the same gender, why not the same ring? -- which at first struck me as a strange thing to do. But I've found that it provides an instant reminder of the vows we have exchanged, the love that we share, and how we hold the exact same dedication to one another.

We've also noticed that washing hands is only getting more complicated. There's that little bit of water that gets stuck under the band. Our solution so far? Push the band up on the knuckle until the finger is dry, then slide it back down. I suppose it will suffice.

The last note about rings: my titanium band scratched instantly, whereas my partner's is yet in pristine condition. Apparently I'm a little more demanding of my hands.

(Day 3)

Bed and breakfast

2008-06-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

My husband and I, busy as we are as graduate students, decided that marriage called for at least one day of rest and relaxation. So we decided to be efficient -- as all good engineers tend to be -- and combine the trip with an apartment search for my husband.

Traveling a few hours to his new town of work, we plopped down in a nice bed and breakfast on a peaceful lake. As soon as we saw the porch on the lakefront, we knew it was the place for us; after all, it had a rainbow-striped fish blowing in the breeze!

We only hope to find an apartment that can rival our current location for its walk score. My place had a score of 98 out of 100, while my husband's was a full 100 out of 100!

Update: we found an apartment, wonderfully located. And for the city, a great walk score, albeit is considerably less at 71 out of 100.

(Day 2)

I. Am. Married.

2008-06-15T06:33:00.000-07:00

I awoke this morning, gently rolling over to the man beside me, planting a small kiss on his exposed shoulder. Lazily I rolled away from my husband and toward the clock on the bedstand and, as my gaze shook off its fogginess, I made out the the time displayed in turquoise LEDs: 5:56am.

And I arose, swinging my legs off the left side of the bed, planting them gingerly on the carpet, stretching my back, tiptoeing from from the room. My right hand unconsciously reached for the left, turning the unfamiliar circular metal ring on the fourth finger.

And I stepped into a room bathed in morning sunlight, streaming at an oblique angle through its northern window. Approaching the window, I moved my head into beam of light and, tilting my head towards its source, stared into the sun hovering a small arc above the horizon.

Today is my first day of marriage.

(Day 1)